The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Planning (Compensation, Etc) Bill: First Stage

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that this Bill will be introduced on his behalf by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Sir Reg Empey: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA 7/00) to abolish the right to compensation in respect of certain planning decisions; and to amend article 121(1)(c)(iv) of the Planning (NorthernIreland) Order 1991.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Second Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: First, I wish to apologise for my absence from the Chamber when the Bill was called on Monday 16October 2000. This was due to a misunderstanding about times, and no disrespect was intended.
Molaim go n-aontaítear leis an Dara Céim den Bhille um Shláinte agus Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Pearsanta.
Pléann an Bille atáimid le breathnú inniu le réimse leathan de shaincheisteanna fíorthábhachtacha i Sláinte agus sna Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Pearsanta. Tá ceithre Páirteanna ann — tugann Páirt 1 an Chomhairle um Chúram Sóisialta isteach, agus déanann Páirt 11 tuilleadh forála do aisghabháil na gcostas a leag na seirbhísí sláinte amach ar chóireáil taismeach timpistí bóthair ó chomhlachtaí árachais.
Tugann Páirt 111 leasuithe éagsúla isteach, lena n-áirítear aisghairm na reachtaíochta maidir le cisteshealbhaíocht liachleachtóirí, agus bearta le seachaint táillí seirbhísí sláinte a laghdú. Foráileann Páirt 1V do rialachán na gairme cogaisíochta agus ábhair ghineáralta eile. Leagfaidh mé sonraí gach ceann acu seo amach i ndiaidh a chéile.
Tá mé cinnte go mbeidh ceisteanna ag Teachtaí faoi pháirteanna éagsúla an Bhille, agus tá sé de rún agam plé leo seo i m’óráid chlabhsúir.
I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill (NIA 3/00) be agreed.
The Bill we are to consider today deals with a wide range of very important issues in health and personal social services. It is in four parts, the first of which introduces the Social Care Council. Part II makes further provision for the recovery from insurance companies of the cost of Health Service treatment of road accident casualties. Part III introduces miscellaneous amendments, including the repeal of legislation relating to GP fundholding and measures to reduce the evasion of Health Service charges. Part IV provides for the regulation of the pharmacy profession and a number of general matters.
I shall set out the detail of each of these in turn. I am sure Members will have questions on the Bill’s various parts, and I propose to deal with these in my closing remarks.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Part I deals with the very important issue of training and the standards of conduct and practice expected of all social care workers. At present, there is no professional regulatory body dedicated to overseeing standards in the social care field. The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) regulates social work training by setting requirements, approving and monitoring courses and making awards. However, there is no such organisation in other fields to take a lead in driving up both standards of training and quality of care throughout the workforce.
I propose therefore to remedy that gap and set up a Social Care Council which will carry out those duties. It will promote high standards, both in the conduct and practice of social care workers and in their training. Strong support for such a council was expressed by an overwhelming number of respondents to the extensive consultation my Department carried out in the autumn of 1998.
Some 150,000 people receive social services of one form or another. These services are delivered by more than 30,000 social care workers, ranging from professional social workers to care assistants and home helps, and in a variety of settings, from nursing homes to clients’ own homes. Around 80% of the workforce have no qualifications relevant to their jobs. If we are to provide the highest possible standards of care, this is simply not good enough. Social care workers deal with many difficult and distressing human problems. I know that the vast majority carry out their duties diligently and conscientiously, but unfortunately that is not always the case. There have been instances in every part of these islands of unacceptable standards of conduct and of vulnerable people, including children in care, suffering harm and abuse.
The council will therefore have two key responsibilities: to register and regulate the workforce and draw up codes of practice for both social care workers and their employers; and to ensure that staff are properly trained and qualified to do their jobs. The functions of the CCETSW will be transferred to the new council, as will the functions of the training organisation for personal social services in Northern Ireland. This should ensure that education, training and qualifications are to a high standard, fit for their purpose and meet the needs of the social care workforce. The ultimate aim is to raise the quality of the services provided and put in place better safeguards for the protection of people being cared for.
The council will register the social care workforce, starting with qualified social workers. Other high priority groups will be registered from the start, including team leaders, all staff in residential childcare and the heads of residential homes.
Separate transitional parts of the register will be opened for other groups of social care workers within a timescale set by my Department, initially on the basis of having signed up to codes of conduct and practice. Time limits will be set both for achieving appropriate qualifications, such as NVQs, for each particular job and for subsequent transfer to the main register. The definition of "social care worker" will be very wide. It will include not only people working in residential homes, but also those involved in the provision of personal care in other settings, including day centres or a service user’s own home.
Registration will depend on an applicant’s being of good character, being physically and mentally fit for the particular job, and satisfying the training or educational requirements laid down by the Social Care Council for that part, or parts, of the register for which the applicant seeks registration. The council will have power to suspend, vary, or cancel registration if individuals are unfit to practise on the grounds of misconduct, bad practice, negligence, abuse or ill health. There will, of course, be an appeals procedure when registration is refused or cancelled in this way. Registration will make it possible for employers to check the suitability of potential employees and to keep unsuitable or undesirable people out of the social care workforce. Similar councils in Great Britain will also maintain registers, and there will be co-operation between all four councils.
The council will be an independent body but will carry out its functions in accordance with directions given to it by my Department, and it will be under the Department’s general guidance. It is not intended that the council should be a self-regulating body for the social care workforce, and it will therefore have a significant lay membership. Though not specified in the Bill itself, I plan to introduce regulations to allow for a total membership of 21 to 25, which will include the chairperson. The membership will be split into approximately one third laypersons, users and carers, one third registrants and one third other stakeholders such as employers, unions and professional associations. This will create a balanced membership so that the interests of one group do not predominate.
The Bill will also make it an offence for anyone to register as a social worker with intent to deceive. Further, it will allow the Department to make regulations to prohibit people from working in certain jobs unless they are listed in the appropriate part of the register.
My Department provides funding of almost £500,000 annually to the CCETSW, and this will be transferred to the new council. I intend that the maintenance of the register will be paid for by setting an appropriate registration fee, which should eventually raise at least £300,000. The council will also be able to charge for other services and publications. It must be recognised that the council’s role will be much wider than that of CCETSW, and some additional funding will be needed from within the existing budget of my Department.
Part II deals with the recovery of costs for hospital treatment for road accident casualties. It provides for the introduction of a new simplified procedure for the recovery from insurance companies of the costs of treatment, and it increases the maximum amount recoverable. While the Bill does not introduce any new charges, it does extend the current charge to include outpatient treatment. The provisions will not affect the amount of compensation paid to casualties.
Under the present law the charge for inpatient treatment, up to a maximum of £2,949 per case, is levied on insurance by a hospital when a road accident casualty makes a successful claim for compensation. The present system for collecting the charges is not efficient or effective. The proposed new provisions will help hospitals by easing the administrative burden on them, will simplify the system, which will help insurers, and will bring charges more into line with actual costs.
The provisions in part II will centralise recovery arrangements for the cost of hospital treatment by placing the responsibility for this on the Department for Social Development instead of on the hospitals. In practice the Social Security Agency’s Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) will recover the charges.
The decision to use the CRU, which was taken following an option appraisal, makes good sense, because the new scheme will be similar to the benefit recovery scheme that the CRU has operated for 10 years. In line with the benefit recovery scheme, compensators, who are almost exclusively insurance companies, will be required to apply to the CRU for a certificate of Health Service charges for any case in which a road accident casualty claiming compensation has received hospital treatment. To help simplify the system and to stop hospitals from having to calculate charges in every case, a tariff of charges will be introduced. This means that the hospital, the insurer and the CRU, which will make the final calculation, will know from a few simple facts how much the charge will be. For the first time, the Health Service will be able to recover charges in cases where a driver who caused an accident is uninsured or untraceable and the casualty receives compensation from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. The Bill brings the bureau into the scheme.
Finally, although difficult to predict, it is estimated that the scheme could bring in an extra £2·5 million per annum. Recovered moneys will be paid directly to trusts, so that hospitals that provide the care will benefit from the income. The CRU’s administration costs are estimated at about £150,000 per year, and those will be met by my Department. The effect on motor insurance premiums is not expected to be significant.
I now turn to part three of the Bill, which sets out a number of miscellaneous amendments. I am presently considering measures to replace GP fundholding. Pending decisions on those measures, as a first step, it is necessary to take powers to repeal the fundholding legislation, which can be given effect when I take the final decisions on the way forward for primary care.
The Bill introduces three new administrative measures concerning family health practitioners. First, technical changes will be made to the machinery for the remuneration of practitioners to clarify the statutory requirements for such remuneration.
Secondly, family health practitioners will be required to take out professional indemnity insurance. Most practitioners already hold such insurance, often through professional defence organisations, but this will be compulsory in future.
Thirdly, the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 provides for the representation of family health services practitioners on local committees, which represent their interests in discussions with health and social services boards. The Bill aims to ensure that the practitioners themselves continue to be eligible to sit on local representative committees, but that, in addition, assistants or deputies will be allowed to represent them.
The Bill also contains measures aimed at reducing the evasion of Health Service charges by patients and fraud by family health practitioners. Health Service charges include prescription, dental and optical charges. Exemption from these charges is granted for a number of reasons, such as age, certain medical conditions, being in receipt of social security benefits or on a low income. There is evidence of considerable evasion of charges. It is estimated that during the last financial year, some £14 million was lost due to fraudulent exemption claims. The Bill introduces two deterrent measures. It creates a civil penalty for wrongful exemption from, or refund of, a Health Service charge, and it introduces a specific criminal offence for knowingly evading or fraudulently gaining a reduction in Health Service charges.
As I mentioned, the Bill also contains measures to deter fraud by family health practitioners. At present, a practitioner’s name may be removed from a board’s list if a tribunal, constituted under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, acting on representations, finds that the continued inclusion of that person’s name in a list is prejudicial to the efficiency of the service. These are normally referred to as efficiency cases.
The Bill expands the tribunal’s remit to hear representations that a practitioner’s name should be removed from a list on the grounds that he has caused detriment to any health scheme by securing — or trying to secure — for himself or another financial or other benefit to which he is not entitled.
Reciprocal arrangements with England, Scotland and Wales provide that the removal of a name from a list in any one of those jurisdictions would mean removal from, or non-inclusion in, a list in any of the others. The new provisions, therefore, include provision for any person aggrieved by a tribunal’s decision to appeal to the Court of Appeal, or — for example, where there is new evidence — to apply to the tribunal for a review of its decision.
The Bill will further provide for the disclosure of information obtained by the Commissioner of Complaints. During the course of investigating a complaint, the Commissioner may come across information suggesting that a person represents a danger to the health or safety of service users. The Bill clarifies the circumstances in which such information can be disclosed to, for instance, an employer. Such information must only be given to persons whom the Commissioner considers need to know in order to prevent a danger to service users. He must also inform the person involved that the information has been disclosed and to whom it has been disclosed.
The Bill also makes a number of provisions concerned with the Department’s power to direct trusts and with administrative changes in relation to their establishment and finances. For example, the Bill will enable the Department to set quality targets for treating service users and to determine the pay of trust chief executives and their senior staff.
Finally, part III makes provision for a number of miscellaneous matters. These include clarifying the legal basis for the exchange of information between the Registrar General’s Office and the Department; limiting the liability of officers of health and social services councils acting in the course of their duties; permitting pre-registration house officers to undertake training in general medical practice; requiring health and social services bodies to open their meetings to the public; and clarifying the existing law that the sale of the goodwill of medical practices is illegal.
I come now to part IV of the Bill. An important provision here will enable the Department by order to amend legislation regulating the profession of pharmaceutical chemist. The Bill contains provision for the Department, by order subject to affirmative resolution of the Assembly, to amend the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. This would facilitate flexibility in the arrangements governing the profession here similar to the regime introduced by the Health Act 1999 in relation to the pharmacy and other professions in Britain.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the number of Members who have put their names down to contribute, I ask that each Member limit his or her contribution to five minutes.

Dr Joe Hendron: As Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, I welcome the Bill. I know that Committee members are looking forward to considering it at Committee Stage. I will keep my comments brief because it is important that the Committee is given the opportunity to consider the Bill in detail.
As the Minister said, the Bill covers four broad areas. Part I provides for a body to regulate the social work profession and other social care workers. That will be welcomed by social workers as they have long recognised the need to regulate the social care workforce to protect patients, carers and the workforce itself. However, I suspect there may be a debate about the appointments procedure contained in schedule 1.
I understand that the aim of part II of the Bill is to simplify the system used to recover much needed cash for health and personal services from the compensation paid to the casualties of road traffic accidents.
Part III of the Bill covers a wide range of amendments to the law covering health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, including the repeal of the law which established GP fundholding. The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee is concerned that the lessons learned during GP fundholding are not forgotten, and it is looking forward to discussing with the Minister her proposals for a new primary care service.
The Committee has concerns, however, about the timing of the introduction of the changes. It is important that there is not a vacuum. Measures to introduce penalties for fraudulently evading prescription charges and changes to tighten the control exercised by the Department on the administrative and financial arrangements of trusts are also included. These are positive steps. Powers to regulate pharmaceutical chemists in Northern Ireland by subordinate legislation are covered in part IV. These will bring pharmacists into line with other health professionals, and that is welcomed.
Committee members will be looking in great detail at all the issues covered in the Bill, and we will return with amendments at Consideration Stage should they be considered necessary.

Rev Robert Coulter: I also welcome the introduction of the Bill. It is not before time that it is being brought before the House. The Bill is to be commended as it is providing for a professional body for social workers. The time has come for social workers to be given the respect and recognition they deserve. I am glad that the council will be independent and not be self-regulating and that the training schemes envisaged will bring greatly needed equality to the workforce in the social care area.
As the Chairperson has already mentioned, there are some concerns about the appointments procedure, and that is an issue that the Committee will be looking at in depth.
One of the problems in Northern Ireland is what happens to patients after they leave hospital, and it is welcomed that this area of care is being looked at. I also welcome part II of the Bill, which deals with the recovery of costs after accidents; this measure should have been introduced long ago, and I support it fully.
I am glad that, under this Bill, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will have the power to direct trusts. Trusts will no longer be autonomous — they will be accountable to another body.
I support the regulations concerning pharmaceutical chemists. However, it is hoped that the Minister and the Department will ensure that the new council will not be just another centre for administration soaking up much of the badly needed funds for patient care. It is hoped that the council will be a well working, slim and efficient body. I welcome the Bill.

Mr Paul Berry: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, although it is no thanks to the Minister for Sinn Féin/IRA who arrived with it a week late and with very little apology. I listened very closely to what the Minister said and all that I heard in her apology was the word "misunderstanding" — it was her duty to be in the House at the proper time on that day.
However, from the outset it seems that the only the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will gain anything from the Bill. Any reading of it confirms the view that if anything should be reviewed at present it is the Department itself.
There is a range of matters in the Bill that I still seek clarification on. Members have listened closely to what has been said about social workers, and it is to be welcomed that they are going to be properly registered. However, there are still major concerns and a great need for clarification on the registers.
Clause 3 (2) of the Bill says
"There shall be a separate part of the register for social workers and for each description of social care workers so specified."
Subsection (3) says
"The Department may by order provide for a specified part of the register to be closed, as from a date specified by the order, so that on or after that date no further persons can become registered in that part."
Clarification is needed on where social workers stand if they are not able to be properly registered.
Clause 9 should include the word "must". Clarification is also needed on the rules which will determine that, unless it is spelt out from the beginning, these bodies will conveniently dismiss those who ought to be consulted. The codes of practice need to be tightened up. The Bill states that the council shall do this and the council shall do that — the council should be held more responsible.
Clause 11 deals with qualifications gained outside NorthernIreland. There are currently many qualifications which ought to have equivalence but which the state does not recognise for fear that they will downgrade its imposed qualifications. I think of the anomaly with NVQs which are counted while other qualifications with historic standing in the world of business are dismissed, simply because they would downgrade NVQs. This equivalence should be spelt out in greater detail.
One very important matter is the status of this council as set out on page39. The Bill proposes to replace the existing Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). That is all right, but the status that will be given to the new council needs greater clarification. What was the reasoning behind this? It reads
"The Council shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Council’s property shall not be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown."
I want a list of all other bodies, especially state bodies, that have the same status, and I want to see book, chapter and verse of such status elsewhere. Once again, the Department intends to be good to itself financially. The estimated cost of this council is £1·4million. I trust that this will not just be more bureaucracy in Northern Ireland. The Assembly needs to think very carefully before going to the taxpayers and telling them that they will have something else to pay for.
Part II deals with the payment for hospital treatment of traffic casualties, and I broadly welcome the principle of recovery. But what concerns me is that the only people who will do the paying are the companies of those who have insurance.
There are two glaring weaknesses. First, those who drive without insurance and cause death and injury make no reparation to the hospital, but they still get treatment. That ought to have been dealt with in the Bill. As it stands, you are worse off if you have insurance. Secondly, there is the matter of those who are charged with careless or dangerous driving and who have injured themselves. There is no mention of their making reparations to the hospital for treatment. That is a major problem at present.
Clause39 deals with the repeal of the law about fundholding practices. I welcome the initiative to end fundholding, but it is quite pathetic that we have no template or vision for its replacement. However, the fact that the Minister herself has no vision or strategy — she thinks only of reviews — explains why this is so.

Ms Jane Morrice: The time is up.

Mr Paul Berry: There should have been three separate Bills for this major discussion today.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. I too welcome this Bill, one of the first Bills published by a local Minister who is accountable to the Assembly and, what is more important than that, is accountable to local people. This is a positive development as we can now scrutinise the Health Service. It is also positive as this is the first time in some years that we will have a structured say in shaping that Health Service.
On welcoming the proposed establishment of the Social Care Council I support the need to regulate the working practices and training of the people involved in this scheme. The Department and the Assembly need to recognise the hard work and commitment of social workers in delivering a quality service.
The proposed council will enhance and maintain the work of social workers, and I support that. However, some aspects of the council concern me. While I welcome the Department’s ensuring that its service users and lay-people are in the majority on the council, I have a problem with the Department’s appointing it.
I welcome the Minister’s statement that one third of the council will be made up of trade union representatives. However, a disciplinary procedure needs to be developed, not only with the delivery of a quality service in mind but with the inclusion of input from the unions.
The training remit needs to be strengthened and, more importantly, resourced. We are all aware of good legislation being put through here but with no resources or money following for it to be implemented. This cannot happen again. We need to take account of new pieces of legislation and the equality agenda.
Like my colleague on the Health Committee, Paul Berry, I welcome clause 11, enabling the council to recognise qualifications gained in European Economic Area (EEA) states as being equivalent to those gained in the North. There is a need for work practices to be developed in conjunction with bodies in the 26 counties to ensure quality of service and exchange of staff on an all-Ireland basis.
Sinn Féin is for free health care at the point of delivery. While, again, I understand the reasoning behind this part of the Bill, I remain to be convinced that this is the best way forward. The arguments put forward for supporting it are that this legislation will bring us into line with England, Scotland and Wales. We are a legislative body. This Assembly should decide its own way forward. Just because something happens elsewhere, does not necessarily mean that it is right.
Sinn Féin’s position on GP fundholding has been on the record many times. We have been against fundholding from its inception as we believe it created a two-tier system. It also promoted inequality in the Health Service. I welcome the closing of this chapter, but we need to learn lessons from fundholding in order to make the Health Service more accessible to all.
We have also been opposed to the setting up of unaccountable trusts. These facilitate the establishment of an internal market. I do not believe that trusts can plan and deliver services at the same time, and we are all aware of the recent report by the Audit Office on the amount of money paid out to chief executives. That report shows, and also makes me believe, that once again these are unaccountable quangos.
While we have been against the trusts, I welcome the provisions in this Bill that will give the Department power to direct trusts to provide services they should be providing at ground level and to set pay scales as advised by the Audit Office.
I welcome the new arrangements that will make trusts more open and accountable. On the issue of prescription charges, I agree that prescription fraud is high. However, we need to tackle institutional fraud in nursing homes and among GPs, chemists and dentists. Again, I welcome the provisions in the Bill.
I also welcome clause 51, which deals with the provision of information on births and deaths. We welcome this as a vital part of targeting resources and redressing inequalities in the Health Service. When the Bill goes to Committee Stage I would like more details on that provision.
Clause 54 provides for public access to meetings of health and social services bodies. At the moment, there is no statutory obligation for bodies to open their meetings to the public although I am aware that some do.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Alliance Party welcomes many of the measures in this Bill. For too long we have left many aspects of our health care unregulated. The vulnerable and needy have been harmed by this dereliction of duty. We can only welcome the setting up of a register for social workers. These workers perform an important function, and we recognise that the vast majority approach their jobs with a professionalism and dedication that can only be admired.
Having a register that would reassure employing agencies about the qualifications of social workers will go far to maintain the high levels of service that we have come to expect from our social care staff. We are also pleased to see that the Government have finally recognised that GP fundholding has had its day. Since its inception, the Alliance Party has been greatly concerned about it — anything that complicates matters for our already overstressed and overstretched doctors and is of doubtful benefit to the patients ought to be abandoned.
It is laudable that we are setting out to recuperate more funds for our Health Service through a more comprehensive recovery of the cost of treating road accidents and by trying to cut down on fraud in the NHS, particularly in relation to prescription charges. I urge caution with the estimate of the moneys that will be regained. I hope that we can increase the amount recovered from road accidents — currently £0·5 million per annum — but I fear that insurance companies and individuals will not always want to co-operate. The collection of a few million pounds through that method will not ease the crises that our Health Service faces — the closing of wards, the cancellation of operations and the growth of waiting lists. We may want those who are responsible for road accidents to pay for the damage that they cause, but that would have, at most, only a symbolic effect and will do little to ease the financial strain faced by so many of our acute care providers.
Moves to tackle fraud are equally laudable, but I urge Members to think longer and more deeply about the problem. Perhaps one way to ease the cost of fraud would be to lower prescription charges; for some, they are too high already. People are hit with charges for a range of drugs. Faced with the costs, many are tempted to act fraudulently and fill out the back of the prescription form, thus claiming exemption. Perhaps lowering the costs would encourage more honesty. I am, however, convinced that people in the marginal sections of our society are confused by the many forms that they are required to fill in to receive benefits, including free prescriptions. We should be looking for ways to ease the cost of prescriptions, to ensure that those entitled to free prescriptions receive them and, finally, to tackle the fraud issue.
The Government have committed themselves to increasing the use of electronic forms and the use of IT generally in the administration of our health and other services. We should design software and hardware to aid the transfer of the necessary details onto the forms and ensure that people receive all their entitlements, and we should use the information to cut down fraud. We should not stop at the narrow provisions of the Bill but think about innovative ways to meet the needs of the population.
We support the Bill, which contains many worthwhile measures. However, it is just a first step towards creating the kind of health and social services that the people of Northern Ireland want, need and deserve.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I will not reiterate the questions that were raised at meetings of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. There were many, and the five-minute time limit does not allow me to go into detail. I will simply take up some of the points that the Minister raised in her speech, some of which we may not have been au fait with until now.
First, I would like to raise concern about the proposal that the old Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) is to be stood down, as provided for in the Bill. If the Bill does not go through in the expected time, will there be a delay in the establishment of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council? If so, what will happen in the interim? Will there be transitional arrangements?
Secondly, this is the first time I have heard about the make-up of the council. Although I am pleased with the nature of the appointments, I share the concerns of Ms Ramsey. It is important that we have detail on that. All we knew was that there was to be a majority of users and lay people. It now seems that a third of the council is to be made up of lay people and users and another third made up of those registered, which is something I would like more detail on. How can this be the case if we are attempting to register under the new procedures?
The final third will be from employers, trade unions and professional associations — which one might consider to be users. I welcome the fact that trade unions will be in a position to put forward names. One of the best presentations to the inquiry into residential and secure units for children was made by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA), which covers social services and social workers in particular. Since NIPSA is familiar with the pay levels, the conditions, the stress and the work of social workers, it is important that it be represented on this council. It is significant that we are discussing this issue at a time when social workers have found it necessary to go on strike in the Foyle area, following similar concerns in the north and west of Belfast. These matters are extremely important.
I would like to have similar reassurance on the transitional arrangements for when GP fundholding ends. What will happen then?
The Bill says that there will be no adverse impact on co-operation or common action under North/South or East/West relations. That is something that the Bill does speak to. It talks about European Economic Area (EEA) states and qualifications outside Northern Ireland. We need to turn that around and ask whether Northern Ireland qualifications are recognised abroad. This is an issue about professional qualifications. In some cases, for those who do not follow the undergraduate route in Northern Ireland, fewer years are spent studying than in other countries.
The question then arises of whether our social care workers will be able to practise elsewhere. This is not just about whether people coming in can practise here. There is an adverse effect. Those wishing to work in the Republic, Scotland, England or Wales are having their qualifications questioned because of the number of years’ of equivalent practice.
This is the first time I have heard of hospitals producing charges or tariffs for the costs of operations. I am sure that that is the case, but is there a protocol that we could see? Is there further information on this? That is important.
The Minister says that prescription fraud now costs £14 million, although the explanatory note says £12 million. Have there been no savings from the introduction on the prescription charge which asks people to identify whether they are on benefits and, therefore, exempt from prescription charges?

Mr Alan McFarland: On initial reading, I broadly welcome the Bill. I particularly welcome the setting up of the Social Care Council. It is notable that some 80% of social workers currently have no formal qualification. In recent years a small number of wayward social workers, particularly in Great Britain, have given the profession a bad name. I suspect that the new regulations, the recognition and the training will protect the profession and restore its good name.
In terms of GP fundholding, does the Minister plan to extend to Northern Ireland the proposals on contracts contained in Great Britain’s national plan? According to anecdotal evidence, certain GPs will never refuse to sign a sick note because they are paid according to the number of patients they have. If they refuse to sign the note, a patient will simply turn to another, willing GP. Likewise, few GPs will refuse to sign Disability Living Allowance forms. Such matters could, perhaps, be dealt with as part of this system.
I welcome the proposed widening of access to health trust meetings. At present, the public can attend a health board meeting but not a trust meeting. The new legislation will change this. I also welcome the thrust with which the appalling situation relating to trusts’ chief executives is being remedied. Earlier in the year, chief executives were leaving and paying themselves enormous sums of money. They were operating under contracts which allowed them to leave one job with large remuneration as compensation before taking a job elsewhere. That seems crazy. I look forward to examining this Bill in further detail in the Health Committee. Overall, I welcome it.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Perhaps a little learning is a dangerous thing, but I have some inside knowledge of the Health Service. I deeply regret that so much of the Bill should relate to bureaucracy and administration. The delivery of health care at the coalface is barely mentioned. Are the bureaucratic and administrative aspects of the Health Service our highest priority? The burning issue for people in the street — simple access to primary and secondary care — has been largely ignored. The Bill contains no plans to tackle the winter crisis, which is already upon us. Neither is there any mention of the fact that primary care, particularly community psychiatric care, is being bled dry.
It is easy to pay lip service to good things and to condemn sin. However, we are making no significant improvement to the Health Service.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Is that not an unfair list of criticisms to direct at this Bill? Many of us agree with those comments, but the same criticisms could be levelled at any piece of legislation, because one legal instrument will never be sufficient to cover every single problem in the system.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: No matter which Bill is before us, we must prioritise carefully. The biggest priority is to ensure that there is adequate funding where people need it most — in primary care, where the most efficient and most cost-effective service can be delivered. In this Bill I detect an increase in bureaucracy, but I do not see the need to channel funds in this way.
I want to comment on the bungling that has been associated with the abandoning of fundholding. Fundholding was introduced by the Tories for all the wrong reasons. We can all jump up and down and be opposed to fundholding for all sorts of political or philosophical reasons. Many, including myself, were forced into the fundholding system in the hope that patients would get a better level of care.
We found — not for the reasons intended but almost by accident — that a by-product of fundholding was considerable benefit to patients. For the first time in the Health Service there was accountability, and that is saying something, because it had not been accountable for 50 years. Decisions were being made at the bedside or otherwise in the primary care setting. Choices could be offered to the patients, and small amounts at the edges — maybe 4% or 5% of the fundholding budget — were flexible and patients’ choices could be taken into account when meeting their needs. Perhaps most important of all, large monolithic extravagant hospitals were brought to account. If you want me to spell that out, I will. There were a number of benefits.
However, we have now got rid of fundholding — or have we? It is somewhere out there in limbo, and nobody knows what is happening. It is going, and it is not going. It has gone, yet it has not quite gone. Everybody is waiting for something to happen. There is no provision, financial or otherwise, for winding up fundholding.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: We are going to have commissioning, whatever that means. To me it means going back —

Ms Jane Morrice: Your time is up.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Thank you. It means going back ten years to the muddle and the confusion of throwing money at problems, rather than taking responsibility for them.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: We will have one big magic roundabout and no answers.

Mr Jim Shannon: Many things in this Bill are agreeable, and we will be glad for them to happen, but we have concerns about some parts. It is good that the Minister has appeared before the Assembly today. Can one hope that, last week, she was addressing the bed shortage at the Ulster Hospital or, perhaps, the long waiting lists for appointments, or the long hours that nurses and doctors have to work in all the hospitals — especially in the Ulster Hospital — or the staff shortages that we have? Perhaps that is the reason she was not here last week.
I would like to address two issues. The first is in relation to the recovery of charges in connection with the treatment of road traffic casualties. Obviously there is a clear need to find a method for recovering the cost of treating injuries to these people, and the new arrangements are to be welcomed.
The explanatory and financial memorandum states that recovery will be centralised and that the savings to the Health Service could amount to £3 million, compared to the £500,000 at present. The memorandum states — on page 21 — that there will be slight increases in insurance premiums. Will the Minister confirm that in the Department’s dealings with insurance companies — and we hope that it has dealt with them — any insurance increase will be focused on those responsible for the accidents and thereby the injuries. We all know that the statistics very clearly indicate that the largest number of accidents and injuries are caused by the boy and girl racers who can buy a car with two years’ free insurance. It would be encouraging for those who have to tax and insure their cars, and who find that the premiums rise regularly, to be sure that any future insurance increases were not directed against those who, by and large, do not have a record of problems and accidents.
I also ask the Minister if the Health Service will be pursuing recovery for injuries from Republic of Ireland drivers who are involved in accidents in Northern Ireland. It would be a disgrace to find that such recovery could not be made from drivers in that jurisdiction. Has sufficient legislation been made to cover this eventuality?
I would also like to address part IV of the Bill, which has direct implications for the pharmaceutical chemist. I have made it my business to speak to some chemists, and they expressed specific concern that they could be forced to sell, on prescription, the "morning after pill", the PC4. Under this legislation, will chemists will be forced to make a moral decision? Some will neither stock, nor sell this pill.
Not enough research has been done on this, and chemists have a real concern that the pill will be taken off prescription and they will be asked to sell it over the counter. Will the Minister confirm that this will not happen? Not enough research has been done to determine if the effects of the pill could be detrimental.
Following hard on the abortion debate and the overwhelming vote against it, I urge the Department of Health to be cautious towards pharmaceutical chemists who will, generally, refuse to accept any directive or ruling from the Health Department. Will the Minister confirm her position on the PC4 pill?

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Along with other members of the Health Committee, I give this stage of the Bill a broad welcome.
If a little learning is a dangerous thing, Dr McDonnell is not in much danger, judging by his contribution. I am not sure whether he is happy or disappointed with fundholding, or if other issues which he raised were not in the domain of another Minister, rather than the one who is with us today.
I welcome in particular clause 2, which defines a social care worker. Clauses 3 to 7 detail the procedure for registering social workers, and that is an important matter. Clause 8, relating to registration and enforcement, is also significant. Clause 9, which defines the codes of practice, is to be commended and, despite some reservations that I have, clauses 10 to 13, which refer to a training function for social workers, are also to be welcomed.
As Mr McFarland said, we are particularly happy that clause 54 provides for "public access to meetings of certain bodies", as there is now no statutory requirement for health and social services bodies to open their meetings to the public. The Bill will make this a requirement, and we welcome that. We will also be looking at trust fund management and at how this Bill will make those responsible for trust funds accountable to the public in a way that they have not been before. We do not intend to allow the fat cats to get any fatter, and if they should happen to, they will have to be held accountable.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, at this stage we give a broad welcome to the Bill and look forward to further discussions on it.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí as ucht a suime sa díospóireacht ar an Bhille seo. Is ilghnéitheach iad forálacha an Bhille agus tugann siad isteach athruithe do na Seirbhísí Sláinte, Sóisialta agus Pearsanta.
Thóg Teachtaí ceisteanna agus luaigh siad pointí suimiúla. Féachfaidh mé le plé leo uilig. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their interest in the debate on this Bill. The provisions are diverse and represent changes to health and personal social services. Members raised a number of questions and made interesting points, and I shall endeavour to deal with all of them.
We had questions about how the Social Care Council will be funded, about the appointments procedures and about representation on it.
I will move first to funding for the council. The cost of regulating the workforce will be met from annual fees paid by the registrants. A sliding scale of fees will take account of different pay scales and registration categories, and that is expected to bring in an annual income of at least £300,000 when all staff are on the register. At present, Government Departments fund the regulation of education and training through the provision of almost £500,000 to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. These funds will be passed to the new council. It will also have the power to charge for other services. I do not see the new Social Care Council becoming a drain on resources and taking away from the value of health and social services. On the contrary, I see it adding value and improving quality in the health and social services field.
Ms McWilliams queried representation on the council. Decisions have not yet been made about the precise procedure for appointments. However, the selection process will be fully transparent, with all posts advertised and applications considered strictly on the basis of merit. Service users and lay members will make up a section of the council. One third will be drawn from registrants, and the others will come from employment, professional and education interests. Obviously, the registrants will be selected from people who will have been registered at that time. We can go into this point in further detail at a later date. In addition to advertising the posts, we will invite the representative bodies to nominate people who can bring the necessary skills and knowledge to the work of the council.
Mr Berry asked a question about the fact that the Department may, by order, provide for a specified part of the register to be closed, so that, on or after a given date, no further persons can become registered in that part. He asked why this power was necessary and what impact it would have if people could not get on to the register. It is not envisaged that the part being closed will at any time be a part to which people would be seeking access. The power will allow the council to take account, over time, of the changing patterns of service provision. In the future, it may well be that certain categories of the social care workforce will no longer exist. This may apply to those working in educational or criminal justice settings. Let me give a clear example of this. If we had established a register 25 years ago, we would almost certainly have had a section of the register dedicated to hospital almoners. Such a category would not be appropriate today.
I have dealt with most of the questions that have been raised about the council. Ms McWilliams also asked whether there would be a delay between the standing down of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and the introduction of the new council. That will not be the case. The legislation provides for a shadow body until the council can be formally established. Members of the shadow body will also be selected through full appointment procedures. The shadow body will make the necessary preparations to facilitate a smooth transfer of responsibilities to the new body. This has been very clearly laid out, so there should be no hiatus or vacuum.
Ms Ramsey asked about the recognition of qualifications gained elsewhere. The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work is working closely with the equivalent body in the South of Ireland to examine social work training and to facilitate opportunities for cross-border placements. Very clear guidelines are also in place which will ensure that people here can obtain qualifications which will allow them access to employment elsewhere.
Mr Berry also asked about the equivalence of qualifications. The National Training Organisation for Personal Social Services is working with employers to identify the skills required to deliver a quality service. The outcome of the consultation will dictate which qualifications are recognised. These will include the full range of qualifications and not just the NVQs and the professional qualifications that are recognised now.
At present, there is no agreed code of practice. Social care is so important to so many people that specific codes of conduct and practice are needed. We intend to introduce codes so that social care workers and their managers are clear about what is expected of them and to enable the public to see clearly the standards to which these staff must work. The four agencies who are working together on this, and who would have been previously represented, have commissioned a project to draw up draft codes of conduct and practice. This will be issued for consultation with the full range of stakeholders here. The Social Care Council will make the final codes widely available.
Finally, I note with satisfaction that several Members, including Rev Robert Coulter and Ms Ramsey, mentioned the dedication, commitment and hard work of social workers here. We ought to pay tribute to those working in the social care field. As Members have said, the imminent establishment of the Social Care Council has been widely welcomed by such people precisely because of their dedication and high standards.
I turn to the questions regarding the recovery of money following road traffic accidents. The Rev Robert Coulter said that the means to recover such money should have been introduced some time ago. The power to recover money from insurance companies has existed for some time under the Road Traffic Act. However, this new legislation will provide for a streamlined and less bureaucratic system, as well as an increase in the recoverable amounts to a level which more closely reflects cost. I am pleased that the Member has welcomed these new streamlining arrangements, which are indeed timely.
I have two points in response to Mr Berry’s question about whether it is only those with insurance who will pay. The impact on actual insurance premiums is not thought to be significant. An alteration of between £6 and £9 a year is being considered. It is the insurance companies which will be affected, and it will be for the insurance industry to determine how its customers are charged. The legislation will have an impact on those who cover insured drivers and on uninsured drivers. The introduction of the Motor Insurers Bureau into the scheme means that compensation will be paid in cases where a driver has no insurance.
Mr Shannon asked if the Department would recover compensation from drivers from the South. The Department has consulted fully with the insurance industry in developing the legislative proposals, but it will not recover compensation from drivers from the South.
I turn to the measures being taken to tackle the evasion of Health Service charges, prescription charges and fraud by National Health Service family practitioners.
Ms McWilliams queried whether dispensing checks had in fact brought any measurable benefit. Dispensing checks have had some success, and it is estimated that the income collected as a result has increased by approximately £1million this year. However, this does not obviate our difficulties and the need to introduce further measures.
MrMcCarthy asked about reducing prescription charges. This Bill tackles the specific problem of the evasion of these charges, so that issue is outside its jurisdiction. A wide range of exemptions from charges is in place to protect people who may have difficulty paying or who have special needs. As part of my plans to ensure that the Department fully meets its equality obligations under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I will be looking at the equality implications of Health Service charges in due course, but the matter is not relevant to today’s Bill.
MsRamsey indicated the need to investigate institutional fraud in nursing homes, GP practices, dental surgeries and so on. The Department is already taking action to detect and prevent fraud in all areas. All health and personal social service organisations are required to have fraud response plans in place. I have established a counter-fraud unit in the Central Services Agency to assist boards in the investigation of potential fraud in family practitioner services. GP claims are subject to post-payment validation checks, and similar checks are undertaken for pharmacists, dentists and opticians. Members will note that the clauses in this Bill relate not only to individuals but also to Health Service practices.
I shall now turn to the questions from DrHendron, MrBerry and MsRamsey on the timing of the new arrangements for primary care. I intend to publish proposals for those new arrangements for formal consultation in the near future. I agree that it is important to learn from the lessons of fundholding and from other models of primary care commissioning. I make a point of working on the lessons of the past and building on positive experiences from the past when developing new arrangements. We must also ensure that those new arrangements reflect local circumstances.
Mr McFarland asked about GP contracts. I am aware that preliminary proposals to amend GP contracts are emerging from the NHS plan in England, and I will study those proposals closely and follow that debate. I will introduce new arrangements here only if it is appropriate to do so, given our local circumstances.
Dr McDonnell asked about fundholding. I accept that there were positive aspects to fundholding, and I will attempt to build on those. However, in general, Members will agree that it is time to end GP fundholding.
On the question of chief executives’ pay, I recognise the problems highlighted by MrMcFarland. The Audit Office published a report recently in response to those problems and identified important lessons for setting contracts and regulating termination payments. Although they came to attention earlier this year, these problems arose a number of years ago. I want to ensure that they do not reoccur and that the powers of direction contained in this Bill will facilitate the introduction of fair and open arrangements.
I want to address Dr McDonnell’s question on accessing services. I know there are difficulties in accessing services, but the problems identified by the Member concern resources, which are a priority for me. However, they are not concerned with legislation, which is why they are not being dealt with today. That is not to suggest, however, that they are not being dealt with at all.
Tá súil agam gur chlúdaigh mé iomlán na bpointí a luadh, ach gabhaim mo leithscéal má d’fhág mé ceist ar bith ar lár. Scrúdóidh mo chuid feidhmeannach tuairisc na díospóireachta, agus scríobhfaidh mé chuig Teachta ar bith nár freagraíodh a cheist nó nár clúdaíodh a cheist go hiomlán.
Gabhaim buíochas arís le Teachtaí as ucht a suime sa díospóireacht.
I hope I have dealt with the bulk of Members’ questions, and I look forward to further discussions with Assembly Members and Committee members on the provisions of the Bill. I apologise if I have overlooked any questions. My officials will scrutinise the record of this debate, and I will write to any Member whose question has not been answered. I would like to thank Members for their interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill (NIA 3/00) be agreed.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: By leave of the Assembly, I propose to take clauses 1 to 64 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill en bloc, there being no amendments and no indication that Members wish to speak against their standing part. This will be followed by clause 65, to which there is one amendment on the Marshalled List, and then by the remaining clauses, schedules 1 to 9 and, finally, the long title.
Clauses 1 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65 (Tests for determining paternity)
Amendment (No 1) proposed:
", having regard to the age and understanding of the child,". — [MsGildernew]

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Clause 65, subsection 3 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill will give the courts the power to force children under the age of 16 to give a blood sample to establish paternity through DNA testing. I have reservations about this section of the Bill. A child of 14 or 15 who has never known his father could be forced to give a blood sample. Is this child to be held down and forced to give that blood to determine his paternity?
If the person with care and control of that child does not believe that it is in the child’s best interest to give blood, surely we should respect that view. To force a child to give a blood sample is a violation of the child’s rights. Allowance for the child’s age and understanding should be incorporated in the Bill, taking the child’s needs into consideration.
The Minister has written to my Colleague, Sue Ramsey, to say that he cannot guarantee that the sample will be destroyed after the test has been conducted. We should not allow this clause to go unchallenged.
This would be the same as having that young person’s DNA sample on record for life, and it could be used to convict him or her years later. That would be a breach of his or her civil liberties, and we cannot allow this clause in the Bill to go through without amendment. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr David Ford: I share Ms Gildernew’s concerns, but I shall not repeat them at great length. I wrote to the Minister some time ago about where this section of this Bill impinged on the Family Law Reform Bill. He responded that that was a matter for another Minister, but there is clearly a problem when we have two related Bills going through, one of which is being treated as a parity measure and as though all discussion on it is impossible. Yet again, as with some of the clauses we debated last week, easy reading of the Bill does not make for easy recognition of the rights of a child, and these rights are not necessarily the same as the rights of those seeking to enforce financial payments.
The Minister will tell us that as this is a matter of parity we should accept it, but that is not a good enough answer. Perhaps he could indicate whether it will be difficult to force the courts to take into account the views of the child in a case such as this, or whether it will merely be best practice for the courts to do so anyway. Will he give us a specific assurance that he is confident that it has passed the test of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), because I am anything but confident that that is the case?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened to the points that have been made, and if I seem slightly confused, I suspect the House will forgive me. The arguments put forward in support of the amendment, while I understand the sentiments, are based on a misunderstanding.
Under the existing law a blood sample cannot be taken from a child under 16 to determine paternity without the consent of the person who has care and control of the child. Normally such consent is given, but there are cases where it is not forthcoming. In a recent High Court judgement, the judge expressed the view that the existing law may not comply with the ECHR in that it can deny the child the opportunity to know its paternity. It is unsatisfactory that the person with care and control of the child, who may well be a party to the proceedings, should be able to frustrate those proceedings and prevent the child’s paternity from being established. This can have the effect of denying the child the right to know his father, and the father the right to be recognised as such.
The provision therefore focuses on the best interests of the child when deciding whether to give a direction for tests to establish paternity. The court has the flexibility to distinguish between cases where establishing paternity is in a child’s best interests and those where it may not be. Where the court considers that the child is old enough to express a view, it will take that view into account when reaching its decision. Clause 65(3) amends article 9 of the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 to allow a court to permit the taking of a sample where it considers it to be in the best interests of the child. This will ensure that directions given in the best interest of the child can be effectively enforced and that the law in this area complies with the ECHR.
Turning to the amendment, the court will take account of a range of issues, including the age and understanding of the child, when considering whether or not to make a direction. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. However, the amendment, as drafted — and I cannot believe that the Member intended this — could have the adverse effect of fettering the court’s powers. If the amendment were to be accepted, a court could interpret the legislation as allowing it to take account of the age and understanding of the child only, but of no other factors.
12.00
I cannot believe that that is what the Member intends. In view of the fact that the court will, as a matter of course, take account of the age and understanding of the child, and given the possible unintended implications of the amendment, I ask the Member to withdraw it. However, if the Member feels unable to do so, I must ask the House to reject it.
Regarding the destruction of samples used for DNA testing, I have written to the Member who raised that issue to confirm that samples are destroyed, normally after three months, although that period can be extended, for example, where the test results are challenged.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. It was useful to have that point clarified, and I am glad to hear that the court will not run roughshod over the rights of a child in order to determine paternity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 66 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 9 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Bill is now referred to the Speaker for further consideration. Normally, we would require a five-day interval between Further Consideration and Final Stage. By accelerated passage, however, it may be considered at an earlier time. However, between Further Consideration by the House and the Final Stage, the Speaker needs to satisfy himself that the Bill is still competent and conforms to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since Final Stage can take the form of a debate if the House so wishes, Members may also wish to prepare some remarks to make at that time in the light of what has happened at Further Consideration Stage. It is intended, however, that the final Stage of this Bill will be taken after Question Time today at 4 o’clock.
Members will see on the Order Paper that the next item at that time is the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. However, I remind Members of the five-day interval required for Bills for which there is not accelerated passage. Since the First Stage of that Bill took place last Monday, the earliest time at which it can be considered again is tomorrow morning. After the Final Stage of this Bill, the sitting will be suspended until tomorrow morning, when the Government Resources and Accounts Bill will be taken.

Mr Nigel Dodds: You anticipated my point, and I am grateful for your explanation of the timing and procedure with regard to the Final Stage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. Many Members will regret that we cannot proceed with Private Members’ Business, although it is understandable under our present procedures. Perhaps if we have time later we will. However, I fully understand and accept the reasons you have given.

Mr Speaker: Part of the difficulty arises because we have a single Order Paper for the week. It would be different if we had an Order Paper for each day, and perhaps the Business Committee will consider that matter.
The sitting was suspended at 12.05 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

Education

School Transportation

Mr Paul Berry: 1. asked the Minister of Education if he will outline his plans for the future development of school transportation in the next five years, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 216/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The home-to-school transport arrangements approved by my Department support parental preference and enable education and library boards to provide transport assistance if a pupil is unable to gain a place in a suitable school within statutory walking distance of his or her home. The definition of a suitable school has regard to well-established categories — controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated and Irish-medium schools and, in the grammar school sector, denominational and non-denominational schools. I have no plans to extend the policy. To do so would be to divert resources from the classroom when our aim should be to concentrate maximum public resources on teaching and learning.

Mr Paul Berry: There is great concern about the safety of schoolchildren after a bus driver has dropped them off. There is also concern about overcrowded buses. I would like more answers from the Department of Education.
I am not convinced that the Minister of Education is concerned about the children of Northern Ireland. After all, his party has been leaving them orphaned for over 30 years. [Interrpution]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Department of Education is concerned about the safety of our children. It is essential that everybody charged with responsibility for the safety of children — either at school or when transporting them to and from school — is conscious of the need to ensure that children are looked after and educated about the need for public safety.
In relation to the safety of children who travel on buses, the Member will know that legislation on the carrying capacity of vehicles is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Education and library board and other providers of home-to-school transport operate within the terms of that legislation. I am aware that the Environment Committee is to hold a formal inquiry into transport for schoolchildren which will include consideration of the legislation governing the number of children permitted to travel on buses.

Mr Derek Hussey: I note the Minister’s answer to MrBerry’s question. The Minister is obviously aware of public concern about how schoolchildren are obliged to stand on school buses. He will realise that this is worse in rural areas where schoolchildren travel distances of 20 to 25 miles for their secondary-level education. Will future developments for school transport address the issue? Would it not be circumspect for the Minister to issue a directive to all education and library boards to impose a moratorium on all carriers forbidding schoolchildren from standing on buses until a full inquiry has been completed?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I do not wish to repeat myself. I made it clear that legislation regarding the carrying capacity of vehicles, indeed everything to do with safety on buses, is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. It is not that of the Department of Education. It is important that the formal inquiry into transport that the Environment Committee intends to hold takes place as soon as possible. That inquiry will consider all those matters, and the Department of Education keenly awaits the outcome. Any decisions taken by the Minister of the Environment, or any advice offered by the Environment Committee, must be taken seriously by my Department. We have a huge responsibility, first to see the outcome of that inquiry and, secondly, to consider its full implications. Many Members are concerned about that issue, including myself. That is the most sensible way to proceed.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I wish to commend the Minister’s Department for putting together the training package for drivers and escorts for children with special needs. At present that package has been delivered to the escorts. How long will it be before drivers are also offered that training package? Also, will the Minister’s Department consider offering that training to the private sector and encourage that sector to become involved in that training by extending contracts from one year to three years?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I agree that this issue is vital. People know that steps have been taken to ensure the safety of children on buses. We take care of the extra difficulties created by the fact that we are dealing with children who, in some circumstances, are disabled and have particular problems and difficulties.
I am keen that everyone should receive the highest quality of training available, and I will ensure, from the perspective of the Department of Education, that all relevant authorities involved in the safety and proper provision of school transport adhere rigidly to the training.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the rigid application of the school transport policy restricts rather than helps choice? This is particularly true in the case of those parents who can least afford school transport. Their choice of a particular school is adversely affected by the transport policy since they cannot pass a school that is deemed by the Department of Education to be suitable for them. Does he also agree that examination of this policy is required in order to give people a wider choice, particularly in relation to secondary or grammar schools in rural areas?

Mr Martin McGuinness: This is clearly a sensitive issue, and the Department has dealt with a number of letters from parents who have sought this particular facility for some time. Applications are often refused simply because it has been decided that the code is the most sensible way of ensuring that as many children as possible can avail themselves of the facility.
Everyone knows that transport costs have been a heavy burden on the Department. Over the 1996-97 period there was an increase of £7·8 million, and last year we spent around £46·2 million. We are concerned about the increasing cost of home-to-school transport and the detrimental effect that this has had on the resources available in the classroom.
The current policy on nearest suitable schools was introduced to reduce the numbers eligible for transport with the aim of containing the rising costs and directing more resources to schools. It is important that people recognise and understand that this is an expensive issue and one that uses up considerable resources within the Department.
For the purposes of transport arrangements the term "suitable school" has a precise definition, and, as I said earlier, relates to the established educational categories of controlled, maintained, integrated and Irish medium schools and also to the grammar sector — both denominational and non-denominational.
Transport assistance will be provided to a school that is outside the statutory walking distance in a chosen category provided that there are no similar schools within statutory walking distance to which the pupil could have been admitted. People need to consider that if that measure were to be relaxed, the Department would be faced with the huge problem of having to direct elsewhere the much needed resources that it is trying to direct into the classroom. That would have a detrimental effect on our education system.

Schools: Safety of Staff and Pupils

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 2. asked the Minister of Education if, following the recent attack on staff at a school in Ballymoney, he will outline the steps he is taking to ensure the safety of pupils and staff at all schools in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 213/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The recent attack on staff in Dalriada was disgraceful and I deplore it. While responsibility for health and safety matters falls to employing authorities, my Department has issued guidance to all schools on security and personal safety in schools. This document provides practical advice and guidance on matters relating to the security and overall safety management of schools and other premises used by young people.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: This is a wholly unacceptable answer from the "couldn’t-care-less" Minister of Education. A bit of paper to protect a school and children — that is unacceptable. I want to know why the Department appears to have learned nothing from this pernicious and evil attack on a school in my constituency. Why has it learned nothing from other attacks on schools in other constituencies? I want to know what resources and strategy the Minister is going to put in place to protect children from similar attacks.
The majority of this House will agree with me when I say this: when you appoint a terrorist to a position in the Government of Northern Ireland, it is little wonder that there is a drop in standards in education.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The law places responsibility for health and safety on the employer, in this case the school authority. However, I take the issue of school security very seriously and my Department has issued guidance to schools on the development and implementation of a school security policy. Employing authorities have an important responsibility for ensuring that their schools are safe and secure for staff and pupils. As well as having security strategies they should ensure that risk assessments are undertaken to enable security needs to be identified and addressed.
I recognise that it is difficult for authorities to guarantee school security under all circumstances and there are limits to what can be sensibly done to protect against the most extreme incidents. A proper balance must be struck between making schools secure and keeping them accessible.
Over the course of the last four years my Department has made available additional resources of some £4 million, specifically for basic security measures in schools. The measures have taken the form of access controls on doors to control visitor access, internal audio and visual monitoring systems and intruder alarms. The measures are largely directed towards personal protection of staff and pupils and are determined on the basis of risk assessments carried out by individual schools. These are in addition to more significant capital works undertaken by boards and individual schools to protect school buildings. These take the form of fencing, CCTV, external security lighting, security grilles on windows and the provision of security stores. This followed on from the many lessons that were learned in the aftermath of the fatal stabbing of the headteacher, Philip Lawrence, in England. We always have to be conscious and aware of our responsibilities to schools, to the people who work in them and to the young people.
It is also important to point out that during the summer quite a number of schools were attacked in the north Antrim area. I was very pleased to see that the Paisleys — Mr Ian Paisley Snr and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr — have at long last decided to say something about that. That is an encouraging development because at one of the schools that was attacked the board of governors was actually meeting when someone threw a petrol bomb into the school. There was not a cheep out of Mr Paisley about that incident then. [Interruption]

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Liar. You are a liar.

Mr Martin McGuinness: In the course of the last couple of weeks — [Interruption]

Mr John Kelly: Point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are no points of order during Questions.

Mr Martin McGuinness: In the course of the last couple of weeks, and the recent attacks, [Interruption]

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Liar.

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is most welcome that MrPaisley Snr and Mr Paisley Jnr have at last found their voices.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: You are a liar.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before I call the next Member I remind all Members that we are only at Question 2 — we have a substantial number of Questions still to get through. If Members would keep their Questions relatively short and the Minister the answers relatively short, we might get through more business.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that it is far from satisfactory that term-time only staff, such as school secretaries, find themselves in the frontline of defence in the security systems of many of our schools? Will he bear this in mind when job evaluation exercises and negotiations over retainer fees for such staff are being discused by the agencies under the aegis of his Department?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I agree with the Member. The people presently involved in the joint negotiating council should seriously consider these matters in relation to the ongoing discussions to resolve the problems relating to term-time workers. As everybody is aware, one proposal is that a job evaluation process should be established. I certainly agree that this is important and should be taken into consideration.

School Standards (Rural Areas)

Mr Billy Bell: 3. asked the Minister of Education if he will detail his plans to sustain a high standard of schools in rural areas, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO202/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The accommodation needs of rural schools, like those of all schools, are addressed by my Department’s capital prioritisation arrangements. These give high priority to the replacement of rural schools that are currently operating in sub-standard accommodation. It is important that rural communities have a network of strong local schools with the necessary accommodation, equipment and range of teaching experience. On the rationalisation of rural schools, I will wish to be satisfied that every option has been examined in consultation with parents and the community before making any decisions on closures.

Mr Billy Bell: I note from the Minister’s reply that he shares some of my concerns. How does he intend to ensure that school facilities in rural areas are maintained and improved? Do the capital building priorities address this problem?

Mr Martin McGuinness: In previous Question Time discussions I have made it clear that rural schools, and small rural schools in particular, make a huge contribution to community life. Anybody who knows me will know how greatly I value this contribution. To progress this issue, it is vital that consultation takes place involving local communities, school authorities, boards of governors, school principals, teachers and parents. It is crucial to get this right. In the course of our deliberations on school capital funding programmes and on suggestions or proposals for rationalisation we must ensure that we move forward sensibly on this issue. It is of great concern to people, particularly those living in rural areas.
The rural nature of this area, and the structure of education here, means that there will be a significant number of small rural schools. The accommodation needs of these schools are met via the Department’s capital prioritisation arrangements. There are limited funds available for new school building schemes each year, so only high-priority projects can proceed in planning. This includes the replacement of those rural schools currently located in sub-standard accommodation. Following completion of an economic appraisal, the planning of a project is permitted to proceed to enable the scheme to compete for funding under the annual new starts programme. It is important to appreciate the huge contribution that such schools have made. It is vital that we move forward sensibly, bearing in mind that resources are limited.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Given the high levels of need experienced by rural schools, what proactive measures — and we have heard much in extremely general terms in the earlier replies — does the Minister intend to take to address this problem?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Department of Education considers it important that rural communities have access to a network of strong local schools with the necessary accommodation, equipment and range of teaching experience to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
A strong rural school has advantages in the range of the curriculum, the expertise of the staff, the educational benefits of single-age-group classes, enhanced interaction for pupils and teachers, and more curricular activities. In moving this issue forward and ensuring that a proper locally based education is provided in small rural communities, we must take account of the limited finances and resources available. Many small primary schools throughout the North are over 100 years old. There is huge pressure on the Department in terms of what can be achieved in any given period.
For example, the largest ever capital building programme for schools was announced at the beginning of this year — £70 million. I have made it clear that when one considers the problems and difficulties that exist, this is only a drop in the ocean, and there are few in the House who would disagree. As a result, there has been a debate about rationalisation in education: how to improve facilities and conditions for children, parents, teachers and school authorities, and how to do that sensibly with the available resources. It will be difficult, and it will not be possible to please everybody.
The Department is looking proactively at the issue of rural schools, particularly small rural schools. We appreciate the contribution that they make. There are a number of outstanding proposals before my Department, on which I expect to announce decisions over the next few weeks. People will find these decisions are an interesting departure from previous policy.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I again remind Members to keep their questions and answers relatively brief. There are still a number of questions to be put.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The importance of small schools has quite rightly been stressed. Nowhere is that more important than in the west of the Province, especially in the Western Education and Library Board area, which has the highest number of small schools of all the boards. From Hallowe’en, canteen staff in some small schools in the Western Education and Library Board area will have their hours cut because fewer children are taking school meals because of increased meal prices from 1 September at primary and secondary school level. Given the serious implications of that issue, will the Minister consider a review of all aspects of this decision, including the provision of free school milk for families on income support in all board areas?

A Member: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That question is not relevant.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will take points of order after Question Time, but on this occasion I will ask the Minister whether he considers that question relevant to Question 3.

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is not relevant to the question before us today, but it is a relevant question. It is one that should concern us. Members will be aware that the education and library boards have the key responsibility for the cost of school meals. The Department can only do so much.
Again, this question relates to the level of available resources and whether we are pushing as much finance as possible straight towards our children’s education in an attempt to ensure that resources are classroom-based, as opposed to the other difficulties. We must give serious consideration to the matters raised by Mr Gallagher. I am involved in ongoing discussions with the education and library boards about these issues.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will inform the Minister that although this is described as Question Time, it requires that some answers be given to the House.
I notice that in his responses to the questions on rural schools he has told us —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Wilson, do you have a question?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Yes, I do, and I would like an answer to the question. My preamble is to ensure that we do get an answer.
The Minister has told us that he thinks that this is an important issue and that he is going to give it serious consideration. Perhaps he would tell us what he intends to do to help rural schools. Secondly, will he give this House an assurance that in this year’s capital spending programme we will not see the same bias as we saw last year when the money went in favour of maintained schools at a ratio of four to one?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The last comment is totally inaccurate, as usual — we should not be surprised about that. The reality is that the school capital building programme, which I announced at the beginning of this year, was very well received, and there was very little criticism, even from the Member’s own party, at the time.
One thing is certain in the Department of Education, over which I have stewardship: under no circumstances will any community be treated the way the community that I come from has been treated over the course of 70 to 80 years under British rule.
It is also vital to state that my Department is committed to ensuring support for small rural schools and for education in the rural community. A number of issues are currently before me, and I will take decisions on those over the next couple of weeks. The decisions taken will clearly demonstrate — better than any answer I can give in this House — that I am absolutely committed to the preservation of the rural community and of education within the rural community.

Schools Reorganisation (Strabane)

Mr Eugene McMenamin: 4. asked the Minister of Education if he will outline when the proposed major reorganisation of schools in Strabane will be announced.
(AQO 175/00)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement later in the autumn.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I appreciate the implications of the current review for the whole of the North of Ireland in relation to secondary education. However, Strabane is alone in these new proposals and this is causing tremendous uncertainty and concern. Parents and teachers have been left in limbo for too long. Will the Minister take steps to assure me that there will be an announcement sooner rather than later?

Mr Martin McGuinness: First, and I do not think that anyone will be surprised at this, it would be totally inappropriate of me to pre-empt the outcome of the development proposal in relation to the school in Strabane. My Department is currently preparing a submission for my consideration which will examine the key educational, structural and management factors involved, as well as taking account of the objections raised. The issue that the Member mentioned will, of course, have a huge impact not only in Strabane but also in areas all over the North.
By the end of this month I hope to announce the composition of the review body that will be charged to take forward what I consider to be the most important debate on education that we have had in 100 years. I hope that the review body will come back to me by May 2001 with definite proposals as to how this should be taken forward. Of course, all of this will impact not only on the development proposals for Strabane but also on schools throughout the North.
We will make a decision on the Strabane proposal soon, and we will continue with the debate into post-primary education. I hope that at the end of that process we can come forward with proposals that will allow us manage the whole issue of post-primary education in a way that benefits all our children.

Mr Derek Hussey: The question refers to the major reorganisation of schools in Strabane. The Minister has addressed the issue of the maintained sector and a particular problem in Strabane. However, I also understand that last year the board of governors of Strabane Grammar School entered into discussions with the Western Education and Library Board and the Department with regard to the school’s long-term accommodation needs and that various options were to be investigated and costed. Can the Minister update the Assembly on the current situation of Strabane Grammar School which, to quote its principal, "urgently needs a new-build programme to bring it into the twenty-first century"?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Will the Minister please make his answer brief.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Discussions are taking place, and have taken place, between the officials of Strabane Grammar School and representatives from the Western Education and Library Board. We are very concerned about the state of the schools estate throughout the North, not just in Strabane Grammar School, and it is vitally important that we deal with this in a sensible way.
The Department of Education believes that the announcement of the school capital building programme at the beginning of 2001 will go some way towards alleviating the difficulties of many schools throughout the North. However, there is an added consideration now as a result of the pilot schemes that have taken place with relation to the private finance initiative approach. The Department of Education is also considering how it can take that initiative forward in order to enhance the quality of accommodation at different schools throughout the North. When one considers the huge legacy of neglect and underfunding, I am sure Members will agree that that is the sensible approach.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The time is up.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is it in order for a Member to refer to a Colleague as a liar without having supporting evidence for such a serious allegation?

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is not in order for a Member to describe the Minister as a liar, and I give Mr Ian Paisley Jnr the opportunity to withdraw the remark.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: How can a Member withdraw something that was said from a sedentary position when it does not appear on the public record?

Mr Donovan McClelland: It will appear in the record now because it has been raised as a point of order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: If the Minister is not happy with being called a liar — even if he is — the public record should show that he has been a purveyor of blatant untruths. Let the public record also show that he is a stranger to the truth and an apologist for murder. I would put that on the public record.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Paisley, are you withdrawing your remarks?

Mr John Kelly: A LeasCheann Comhairle, you asked for a withdrawal. Did we get it?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I ask Mr Ian Paisley Jnr again to withdraw the remarks.

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The only person on record in the House as having called the Minister a liar is his own Colleague. The remarks of my Colleague will not be on the record because they were made from a sedentary position. As far as I am aware, the only person who made the comment that will appear on the record was Mr Kelly. Maybe he would like to withdraw it.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order, Mr Wilson. I will examine Hansard and come back to the matter. I am now moving on to the next item — [Interruption]

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker — [Interruption]

Mr Danny Kennedy: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to Mr Hutchinson for giving way — even though it was not willingly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am extremely dissatisfied at the conduct of questions to the Minister of Education. We had a total of four questions. Question 1 lasted for nine minutes 52 seconds; question 2 lasted for six minutes 48 seconds; and question 3 lasted for a record time of — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Kennedy, what is your point of order?

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am not satisfied with the chairing of Question Time. It has been done in a manner in which all Members who took the time and trouble to place on record — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Kennedy, you are out of order. No statement concerning the chairing of the Assembly can be made from the Floor. I drew the attention of the Minister and Members to the length of questions and answers.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 19(7) states — and this is what I would have said if Mr Kennedy had allowed me to continue —
"For the purposes of scrutiny, questions should be answered as clearly and fully as possible."
However, that is not my point of order. My point of order relates to Question 3. You allowed your Colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone to introduce a question which was not on the paper. Standing Order 19(7) states that
"a supplementary question may be asked to elucidate an answer".
His question did not do that. He asked a different question.
He did not then have the decency to stay to listen to the reminder of the questions to the Minister of Education. It was a cheap shot to let his constituents know that he was concerned about what was happening in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. You should have ruled under Standing Order 19(7) that he sit down and that the Minister not answer the question.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Hutchinson, it is for me to decide on what to rule, not you. I am on my feet.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Hutchinson, I am on my feet. Order. The Minister was asked whether he wished to take the question and he continued with it. We are eating into the business of the next section —

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am sorry, Mr Hutchinson. I am taking no further points of order at this stage.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am taking no further points of order.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am now moving on to questions — [Interruption]. Order.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.
Mr S Wilson rose.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Sit down, Mr Wilson. I am on my feet. I am moving on to the next item of business.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order. You cannot stop me making a point of order. It is in the rules.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am taking no further points of order at this stage.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am on my feet, and I am taking no further points of order.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order. You must take my point of order. I have the rule book here.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am taking no further points of order. I am moving on to the next item of business, which is questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I call Mr Roy Beggs.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Hutchinson, if you do not sit down you will be named.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

National Health Service Direct

Mr Roy Beggs: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she intends to introduce the National Health Service Direct service to Northern Ireland, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 188/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Níl pleananna ar bith agam faoi láthair NHS Direct a thabhairt isteach anseo. Bheadh £3 milliún sa bhliain air dá dtabhairfimis a léithid de scéim isteach anseo. Níl mé cinnte go dtabharfadh sí an luach airgid is fearr dúinn nuair a chuirtear san áireamh na tairiscintí eile ar acmhainní na seirbhísí sláinte atá san iomaíocht léi.
I have no plans to introduce NHSDirect here at present. The introduction of an equivalent scheme here would cost around £3million per year. I am not convinced that it would give the best value for money, bearing in mind the other competing bids for Health Service resources.

Mr Roy Beggs: I am most dissatisfied with that answer. Is the Minister aware of the Modernising Government annual report 2000, ‘Putting Citizens First’, in which the nursing director of NHSDirect in Hampshire says that she is saving lives and that figures show that around 43% of callers have been helped directly without having to leave their homes? This service would benefit the entire community in NorthernIreland. I ask the Minister to reassess her position carefully and to look again at where she is spending the money in order to find this £3million.
Perhaps if the Minister stopped spending money on speaking Irish and on issuing press releases in Irish and spent it on the patients, we could afford this service.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have yet to spend £3million on speaking Irish.
Officials have read and analysed the recent review of the operation of NHSDirect in England. This contains a variety of factual information but the summary assessment of NHS Direct’s performance merely says that it may be beginning to achieve the policy objectives for which it was designed. Officials and board colleagues have also visited Scotland, information has been obtained from Wales, and the different approaches are being discussed. However, we need to ensure that we identify the most appropriate way forward to suit local circumstances and that we do that within the resources available to us, not the resources available to England, the resources available to Scotland or the resources available to Wales. As I have pointed out on several occasions, all of these are greater than the resources available for the Health Service here.

Rev Robert Coulter: The Minister will be aware that NHS Direct now covers 65% of the United Kingdom population and that by the end of this year all of England, Scotland and Wales will be covered by it. Does the Minister not agree that it is a poor reflection on her stewardship of health care here that this successful innovation has not yet been implemented in Northern Ireland?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Rev Robert Coulter will be aware that there are differences in approach in Scotland and England. I am determined to ensure that the public here gets the best services possible given the resources available, and that means assessing relative priorities to ensure resources are targeted on the greatest needs. We need to ensure that the type of service we have is the most appropriate one for our local circumstances. That could include, for example, nurse triage to support better self-help, or more appropriate referrals to the various branches of the Health Service, in particular GPs, out-of-hours and hospital accident and emergency services.
As I said, I am not convinced that even if all the resources elsewhere were to become available to me, spending £300 million a year on NHS Direct would give the best value for money, and specifically not when bearing in mind the other competing bids for the existing Health Service resources.

Mrs Joan Carson: I would like parity with the rest of the UK in the Minister’s replies. Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Health? If not, will she undertake to do so at the earliest opportunity?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: That is being done at official level and, as I have said, officials have read and analysed the review of the operation of NHS Direct in England, they have visited Scotland and information has been obtained for Wales. I need to base my proposals on what is the best method to meet local needs within available resources. Therefore, I do not think it would be a good use of either my time or Alan Milburn’s time to have such a discussion at present.

Down Lisburn Trust: Mental Health Services

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she will detail the criteria used by Down Lisburn Trust to divert funding from the mental health department to other programmes within the trust in the last five years, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 197/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tugadh le fios domh go ndearna Iontaobhas an Dúin agus Lios na gCearrbhach iarracht tabhairt faoi na brúnna taobh istigh dá chlár géarmhíochaine ospidéal sa bhliain reatha trí chistí a aistriú go sealadach ó chláir mheabhairshláinte, mhíchumais agus chúraim phobail. Dá bharr seo, aistríodh tuairim le £100,000 ón chlár meabhairshláinte agus suim den mhéid chéanna ón dá chlár eile. Is lú ná 1% de chaiteachas iomlán na seirbhísí meabhairshláinte an £100,000. Ní dhearnadh aon aistrithe ábhartha eile cistí chuig cláir ar bith eile le cúig bliana anuas.
I am informed that Down Lisburn Trust has sought to address pressures within its acute hospital programme in the current year through a temporary transfer of funds from the mental health, disability and community care programmes. As a result, some £100,000 has been transferred from the mental health programme, and a similar amount has been transferred from the other two programmes. That is less than 1% of the total mental health services spend. There have been no other material transfers of funds to other programmes over the past five years.
I am also informed that the trust hopes to restore the funding to mental health services next year, subject to resource availability. All of this, as I would remind Members, happens within the context wherein Scotland spends £128 more per head each year on health and social services and Wales spends 51% more per person, per year.
I have been assured that the trust remains committed to the delivery of high-quality mental health services, as demonstrated by the recruitment of an additional six consultants in mental health services over the past five years.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: In light of the concerns expressed, in particular by GPs in the Lisburn area, about access to emergency psychiatric beds, it seems that mental health is always seen as the poor relation. If cuts are to be made, they are usually made in mental health services first. Does the Minister not agree that it is entirely inappropriate for Down Lisburn Trust to divert £150,000 from the mental health care programme to other programmes within that trust over the past 12 months?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I refer the Member to my previous answer. As regards spending on mental health services, overall expenditure on those services here has risen from £93·7 million in 1995-6 to £114·7 million in 1998-9, which is an increase of 22%.
Notwithstanding that, I have made it clear that I believe there is a need for a significant increase in spending across all programmes of care if the needs of the population are to be fully met.

Mr John Dallat: Does the Minister agree that it would be best if decisions regarding the transfer of funds were made by elected representatives, and that there is now a greater urgency to review the role of health trusts and replace them with elected representatives?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Regardless of who is making the decisions, I believe that where circumstances arise that necessitate a particular transfer of funds, that should occur. We will come to the question of the review of structures later, within the overall Executive programme for reviewing public administration.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Can the Minister assure us that this is not happening in any other trust? Does she agree that once you start doing something like this, it becomes custom and practice?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I agree that once you start a practice like this, it does continue. However, one of the problems with ring-fencing — which is, of course, the other way of tackling this problem, to ensure that transfers cannot be made — is that the flexibility to deal with emergencies is not there. If it became clear that certain services were constantly losing, and losing substantially, to other aspects of the service, I would immediately take action. However, where emergencies arise and there is a temporary transfer of funds which is clearly intended to be replaced and is not a large-scale pattern, the matter needs to be left open to those on the ground dealing with particular situations.

Acute Hospital Beds: Winter Provision

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she will detail what provision is in place to avert a winter bed crisis in acute hospitals.
(AQO 184/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ar an 16 Deireadh Fómhair bhuail mé le cathaoirligh agus le príomhfheidhmeannaigh na mbord chun aithbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar na pleananna a bhí acu chun déileáil le brúnna an gheimhridh. Tá na boird agus na hiontaobhais i ndiaidh pleananna cuimsitheacha a ullmhú chun déileáil le brúnna an gheimhridh. Bainfear breis úsáide as scéimeanna cúraim idirmheánaigh chun líon na ndaoine a chuirtear gan ghá chuig ospidéil a laghdú agus chun a chinntiú go bhféadfar daoine a chur abhaile nach gá dóibh fanacht san ospidéal a thuilleadh.
Maidir le cúram príomhúil, tá socruithe déanta le breis seirbhísí liachleachtóirí agus cogaisíochta a sholáthar taobh amuigh de na gnáthuaireanta i rith an gheimhridh. I ndiaidh dúinn leas a bhaint as na ceachtanna a d’fhoghlaim muid anuraidh, is iad seo a leanas cuid de na bearta atá curtha i gcrích cheana: beidh leapacha breise géarchúraim, ardspleáchais agus míochaine á soláthar; beidh an vacsaíniú in éadan fliú á thabhairt feasta do dhaoine os cionn 65 bliana d’aois. I limistéar Mhórcheantar Chathair Bhéal Feirste beidh ionad le haghaidh iontrálacha éigeandála agus beidh sé ina chuidiú i dtaca leis na hiontrálacha éigeandála a chomhordú i gcás roinnt ospidéal.
On 16 October I met with board chairpersons and chief executives to review their plans for dealing with winter pressures. Comprehensive plans have already been drawn up by boards and trusts. Greater use will be made of intermediate care schemes to reduce the need for inappropriate hospital admissions to ensure that people who do not need to be in hospital can be discharged. In primary care, arrangements have been made to provide additional out-of-hours GP and pharmacy services over the winter.
Building on the lessons of 1999, the measures in place include extra intensive care and high-dependency beds, additional medical beds and the extension of flu vaccinations to the over-65s. In the Greater Belfast area, an emergency admissions centre will help to co-ordinate emergency admissions for a number of hospitals.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are no points of order during Question Time.

Mr David Ford: Given that we had a crisis last January, to hear that the meeting only took place on 16 October causes me some concern. I am not sure whether it is because I wrote to the Minister a few days earlier.
United Hospitals Trust has had a proposal for 20 additional medical beds in Antrim Hospital for the past 18 months, but no action has yet been taken by the Northern Health and Social Services Board. Is the Minister aware of that? Presumably, she is aware of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board report that an additional 100 medical beds are needed in Belfast hospitals. I know where the extra intensive care beds are, but could the Minister please tell us where extra medical beds have been provided since last January? They are needed to deal with a crisis that will inevitably blow up within two months at most?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Member will be aware that I commissioned two reviews immediately after last winter’s pressures; one was into the availability of intensive care beds and the other was into community care. That resulted in the report ‘Facing the Future’, which came out during suspension. The report included specific measures and timetables, and I have consistently followed up on progress with boards and trusts and reported to the House. The suggestion that I met the boards to review progress only on 16 October is completely and utterly unacceptable and does not reflect the situation.
Board plans have included a number of measures, including extra beds, that will be put in place. Each board will have detailed plans as to where those beds will be. This winter, boards plan to introduce around 300 additional hospital beds to cope with likely pressures. They will also have about 1,000 additional community care places this winter. That figure includes intermediate care schemes to reduce the need for inappropriate hospital admissions, as well as schemes to ensure that people who do not need to be in hospital can be discharged.
I am aware of the problems facing hospitals. I have made it clear to the board chairman that plans must take account of the pressures facing specific hospitals before I will approve them. Following my meeting on 16 October, at which planned measures were discussed in detail, I asked my officials to take up a number of issues with the boards, including the impact of current pressures on hospitals.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind the Minister that a substantial number of people want to ask questions, and we are only now at Question 3.

Dr Esmond Birnie: As the Minister said, outbreaks of flu play a critical part in the annual beds crisis. Obviously, vaccination of Health Service employees, to avoid staff shortages at such a critical time of the year, would help with that to some extent, but which institution would carry the cost of such vaccination? We should ensure that GP surgeries and hospital trusts have a financial incentive to vaccinate staff against flu to ensure that workers are available at peak times of demand in the winter.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Boards and trusts have taken on board the issue of vaccinating Health Service staff. We have dealt with the question of the uptake of flu vaccination for the over-65s, and officials are now discussing with trusts the progress made in encouraging staff to take up the vaccination. There is a clear incentive for trusts and GP surgeries to ensure that staff are vaccinated, so that the full complement of employees is there to cope with winter pressures.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In recent years — particularly last year — one of the major causes of the winter pressures was elderly people falling on ungritted footpaths. Has the Minister any plans to meet the relevant Minister to discuss how the dispute between local councils and the Department of the Environment about responsibility for gritting footpaths could be resolved?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As I have frequently said, pressures on the Health Service do not arise only from matters that fall within my Department’s remit. Indeed, some of the measures that could be taken to improve the health of the population are not solely the responsibility of my Department either.
I look forward to the full co-operation of my Executive Colleagues in helping to ensure that all measures come together so that the winter pressures do not have the same impact this year and in years to come.

Mr Joe Byrne: The crisis in acute hospital services is having an enormous effect on the people of the south- west area of the North, particularly Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh. Does the Minister agree that in the light of the population projections compiled recently by the Statistics and Research Agency, which estimate a growth of 11% in the population of the Western Health and Social Services Board’s area over the next 13 years, the counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh need support from her Department?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is there a link between the specific question and the acute hospital review? It is precisely because I consider local hospitals so crucial to their communities that I asked for a short, focused review that will report to me in the new year.

Paedophiles

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the steps she is taking to ensure that her Department has adequate safety provision to protect against paedophiles.
(AQO212/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Reachtálann mo Roinnse an tSeirbhís Chomhairleachta Réamhfhostaíochta a ligeann d’fhostóirí agus d’eagraíochtaí deonacha measúnú a dhéanamh ar oiriúnacht daoine atá ag iarraidh a bheith ag obair le páistí. Beidh mé ag cur moltaí chun tosaigh maidir le Bille um Chosaint Leanaí, lena gcuirfear an tseirbhís seo ar bhonn reachtúil.
Chomh maith leis sin, chuir mo Roinnse ábhar ar fáil don treoir-lámhleabhar ar mheasúnú agus ar bhainisteoireacht priacal maidir le ciontóirí gnéis a d’eisigh Oifig Thuaisceart Éireann.
My Department runs the pre-employment consultancy service which allows employers and voluntary organisations to check the suitability of those applying to work with children. I plan to propose a Protection of Children Bill which will place this service on a statutory footing. My Department has also contributed to a guidance manual for the assessment and management of the risks posed by sex offenders, issued by the Northern Ireland Office. My Department is represented on the joint working group on child protection established by the North/South Ministerial Council. This group aims to develop an arrangement for the reciprocal identification of people considered unsuitable to work with children.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Given that her own party has failed to hand over to the authorities three known paedophiles identified in ‘The Sunday Tribune’ of 27 August 2000, is this House expected to take the Minister seriously on the subject? Does she accept that it is unacceptable for her to remain as Minister while her party protects these undesirable individuals?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: My Department and I have done, and will continue to do, everything possible to ensure adequate safety provision against paedophiles. Furthermore, throughout my political career I have consciously avoided making a political football of this issue. I have never made any statements regarding allegations of child sexual abuse — whether they were against members of the RUC, against members of other political parties, or against members of other churches. This is something that happens in every section of society, in every social class and among every political persuasion. We must take action to prevent child abuse and to ensure that there is no complacency at any level in dealing with allegations about this crime. Those with a statutory responsibility to co-operate in investigating child abuse must discharge that responsibility. Our work must fully protect the rights of the child and minimise the distress caused.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: You can have all the legislative and policy change you want, but unless parents understand the real risks their children face, how can they actually protect them? Does the Minister agree that in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Office and the statutory and voluntary agencies her Department should lead on a strategic approach to this issue? What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to fund a mainstream parent education programme?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: It is very clear that something needs to be done. I discussed this recently with the Health Committee to ensure that on this question and a range of others there is the greatest possible collaboration between Departments, a co-ordinated effort to ensure that our children have the protections and services they deserve. This is one reason I welcomed the setting up of the joint working group on child protection in the North/South Ministerial Council’s education sector that was organised by my Colleague Martin McGuinness. It will ensure that co-ordinated action of this nature is implemented throughout the island of Ireland. I accept that there is a need for the maximum information to be given to parents so they know the dangers their children face. More importantly, information should be provided to children who may face abuse in their own homes as well as abuse outside. We are very anxious to see initiatives to set up helplines and provide information for children.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The Minister has mentioned the need for maximum information to be provided to parents and children, and she has said we can afford no complacency. Will she give the House an assurance that if her Department is aware of paedophile activity, it will pass on such information to the RUC so that the appropriate action can be taken?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I refer the Member to the previous response, where I clearly said that there has to be maximum co-operation among all those bodies who have a statutory responsibility for investigating child abuse. As for my Department’s liaising with the RUC, checks are already carried out against criminal records under the pre-employment consultancy service that my Department runs, and there are also links to the social services.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the judiciary and the rule of law are the only appropriate means of dealing with allegations of child abuse? Will she dissociate herself from paramilitary groups who have taken the law into their own hands and attacked people who have been accused of child abuse and who have made allegations even against members of her party?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: My view of those who take the law into their own hands and physically attack people is that it is wrong, that it should not happen and that it should stop. As to whether the judiciary as opposed to the rule of law is the only avenue, some people prefer to deal with social services, with groups such as community-based restorative justice, or with women’s organisations or others. If people in local areas find that members of their families have allegations of abuse against others and wish to use other avenues, I will certainly not dictate and say that there is only one way in which to deal with such a matter. However, any approach has to be within the law, within human rights norms, and in the interests of the child or the person who is alleging the abuse.

Cancer Services

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she intends to introduce a regional cancer plan similar to the national cancer plan in Great Britain, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO180/00)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá clár á chur i bhfeidhm cheana chun nuachóiriú agus feabhas a chur ar sholáthar seirbhísí ailse anseo i gcomhréir leis na pleananna a fógraíodh i Sasana ar na mallaibh. Tá na nithe seo a leanas i gceist sa chlár atá go maith chun tosaigh: ionad réigiúnach ailse a fhorbairt i mBéal Feirste chomh maith le haonaid ailse in Ospidéal Cheantar Aontroma, in Ospidéal Cheantar Craigavon, in Ospidéal Alt na nGealbhán agus in Ospidéal Uladh.
A programme of modernisation of, and improvement to, the provision of cancer services here, similar to plans announced recently in England, is already under way. The programme, which is well advanced, includes the development of a regional cancer centre in Belfast, as well as cancer units at Antrim Area Hospital, Craigavon Area Hospital, Altnagelvin Area Hospital and the Ulster Hospital. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy services currently provided at Belvoir Park will be relocated to Belfast City Hospital, where a state-of-the-art oncology centre will be built. Work on this project is on course to be completed by 2003. To support this programme of work, a further £8 million has been allocated this year.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s comments. Does she not agree that the plan announced by the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr Tony Blair, at the Labour Party Conference contained aspects that would be of great benefit to cancer research and cancer services? Does she not also agree that all those involved welcomed that plan and pointed out how people in Northern Ireland would benefit from its introduction here?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I agree that people welcomed the plan but many aspects contained of it are already under way here. Thanks to tripartite arrangements with the rest of the island of Ireland and the USA, cancer services here are well on the way to being at the cutting edge. I hope to be able to further this progress within the available resources.
The cancer units being developed at the Altnagelvin, Antrim, Craigavon and Ulster hospitals will mean that chemotherapy services and outpatient clinics in breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian and neurological cancers will be available locally. Patients with more complex cancers will, of course, be treated in the cancer centre in Belfast. We have made great strides in our work on the cancer registries and with the National Cancer Institute in the USA.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. What liaison has taken place with the Minister for Health and Children for the rest of the island, Mr Micheál Martin, with a view to improving North/South co-operation in fighting cancer?

Mr Speaker: The time for this group of questions is up, and on behalf of the House I request the Minister to reply in writing to the last supplementary.

Finance and Personnel

EU Structural Funds Monitoring Committees

Mr James Leslie: 1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will make a statement on the establishment of the new European Union structural funds monitoring committees.
(AQO 199/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: Pending the completion by the European Commission of its Community Support Framework (CSF) for Northern Ireland, an interim CSF monitoring committee was established, representing the social and economic partners, as well as the Government, local government, equality and environmental interests.
Following the resumption of devolution, I asked a working group of that committee to consider how the new structural funds monitoring committees, to be established under the EU regulations, might be composed and structured. The conclusions reached by the working group, and endorsed by the interim CSF monitoring committee, were presented to the Executive Committee in July, which approved the size of the sectors to be represented on each of the three monitoring committees. These are the community support framework monitoring committee, the Peace II monitoring committee and the committee on transitional Objective 1. My Department then invited nominations from a wide range of interests, including local government and the social partners. Nominations have now been received and will be considered by the Executive Committee soon — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. May we please have less noise in the Gallery.

Mr Mark Durkan: I hope, therefore, to be able to announce the membership of the new monitoring committees soon. The Peace II monitoring committee will contain an equal number of representatives from the South, and we hope that we can make a joint announcement.

Mr James Leslie: While I welcome the Minister’s answers, I think the word "soon" could be subject to a variety of interpretations. Can the Minister reassure the House that by "soon" he means that these committees will be established before the end of the year? Can he also assure the House that the representation of locally elected representatives will be higher in the new committees than it was in the old ones?

Mr Mark Durkan: "Soon" means well before the end of the year. As I indicated, I will bring the matter to the Executive Committee very shortly and after that I hope to be in a position to make an announcement. We have the nominations, on which there has been broad agreement.
We are particularly grateful for the work of the working group and the interim community support framework monitoring committee that helped to establish the new format for the monitoring committees. We are grateful too for the assistance that we have since received from the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe to consolidate and ease the nomination process.
I hope to be in a position to make those announcements soon. We have nominations available. I make the point that the Peace II monitoring committee will be a joint committee with an equal number of members from North and South. We hope to make a joint announcement in relation to that. It will certainly be well within the time limit that the Member has requested.

Ms Jane Morrice: How does the Minister envisage those parties which are not in the Government being represented on these committees? How does the Minister expect the Assembly to scrutinise European affairs in the absence of a committee of this type?

Mr Mark Durkan: I have already indicated in previous answers that I am in favour of the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee of the House to look at these points. This applies not least in relation to Peace II — all parties in this House are eager to guarantee the distinctiveness and the additionality of the programme. I explained this to the Finance and Personnel Committee.
All parties in this House were also members of the interim community support framework monitoring committee. There was a fairly desultory pattern of attendance at its meetings, and the proposals that came forward from the working group did not address the position of party members from an Assembly perspective.
In relation to the previous question, four local government representatives will sit on each of the three monitoring committees. I am considering accepting the recommendation that we increase the local government representation on the overall community support framework committee to five, precisely to accommodate a wider range of parties than is currently accommodated.

EU Structural Funds and Peace II Programmes

Mr Joe Byrne: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will detail the current position in regard to the finalisation of the EU structural funds and Peace II programmes.
(AQO 194/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: The European Commission’s community support framework for Northern Ireland for 2000 to 2006 will be implemented through two operational programmes: Peace II and transitional Objective 1.
While I had hoped that the Commission would have finalised its community support framework by the end of August, we are still awaiting the final text of the document. However, this has not prevented progress on our negotiations with the European Commission on the two operational programmes, original proposals for which were sent to the Commission during suspension last April. We received detailed comments from the Commission on both draft programmes in August and since then have sent back revised working drafts. These are now the subject of ongoing negotiations with the European Commission, which we hope will be finalised by the end of November.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Minister for outlining how the discussions and the negotiations are going. Does he agree that European Union funds have played a major role, particularly in helping to regenerate urban and rural communities, over the past 10 years or so? And does he agree that local delivery mechanisms are important for the administration of European-funded programmes, particularly the Peace programme? Given the merits of the district partnership model in Peace I, can the Minister say if any final decision has been made on how Peace II will be administered?

Mr Mark Durkan: I recognise the value of the EU programmes to the whole region and to particular localities. However, I particularly recognise the value of the special and distinctive role played by local delivery mechanisms, not least by the district partnerships and the work they foster and sponsor. The Executive wants to see this role develop under the Peace II programme. Therefore we are trying to ensure that these mechanisms can evolve into more strategic development partnerships at each district level, furthering the existing partnership between local government and social partners, and representing community interests on district partnerships.
The Executive Committee is determined to secure primary allocations for the district partnerships, and also to promote local delivery through those measures that Departments themselves will administer and deliver. The Executive Committee is also setting a particular premium on ensuring that Departments employ local delivery mechanisms in social inclusion measures — particularly for women, children and young people — and in cross-border measures. These concerns are very much at the top of the Executive agenda as we try to advance the work on Peace II.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: My question has been covered in the previous answer.

Ms Jane Morrice: On the question of gap funding between Peace I and Peace II, is the Minister considering releasing more funds to fill that gap? Women’s centres, cross-border projects and capacity-building projects in single-identity areas are desperately in need of funds. Could they possibly be given a loan from future budgets?

Mr Mark Durkan: We have addressed these concerns over gap funding before. The Executive Committee previously allocated £2 million to assist the voluntary and community sectors involved in Peace I and other EU structural funds over this period. That assistance was made available through the Department for Social Development. Also, approximately £3·3 million was made available by the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to assist eligible, needy projects in the gap between the Single programme 1994-99 and the new transitional Objective 1 programme. We continue to monitor problems, and if people have detailed information on real problems I would appreciate their making it available to my Department. I hear many reports and discussions about the problem, but often the precise details do not materialise. Nonetheless, we want to continue to monitor problems, and the Executive will do this as it reviews our progress in negotiating the new programmes.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons learnt from the last funding, and from Peace I in particular, was the impact of the involvement of voluntary and other wide-ranging agencies? Will these lessons be drawn on in Peace II, and in distributing structural funds the next time round?

Mr Mark Durkan: We want to build upon the positive lessons that were learnt from Peace I, not just to improve and bring forward developments for the life of the Peace II programme, but in ways that ensure the sustainability of these models and mechanisms beyond the Peace II programme. I do not believe in treating district partnerships and similar models simply as biodegradable containers for carrying money on a temporary basis from Europe. If we are serious about these models, we need to build them into our own long-term plans, and to apply them to our own measures. Therefore that will be a factor in how we approach Peace II.
Tomorrow I will meet a representative group made up of people from district partnerships, local government, intermediary funding bodies and so on, before having a wider and fuller colloquy with them next month. We aim to agree the best way forward under Peace II in order to make progress on the vital and important work that developed under Peace I.

Mr Francie Molloy: Last week, when the Committee met a delegation of district partnership boards, there was still quite a gap in funding. A number of people who had applied for funding from the last round, particularly from the Department for Social Development, had been refused, and we have asked them to forward those applications to the Minister so that he can assess the current need.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank Mr Molloy for the helpful direction he gave to the groups who were in front of the Committee last week. The more solid information we have, the more helpful it is. All the money in Peace I has been allocated, but not all of it has been drawn down and it needs to be spent before December 2001. We are encouraging everyone with a direct interest to make sure they are making full and best use — and fairly ready use — of the moneys available under Peace I.
In relation to Peace II, we want to help people who will be genuinely caught with a gap in funding. Equally, we have to be aware that the European Commission requires Peace II to be a separate and distinctive initiative. Care must be taken when making assumptions about which programmes will continue on a roll-over basis from Peace I to Peace II.
A number of facts need to be considered. People who want to bring forward new measures, new proposals, new projects for Peace II have a relevant interest also. We cannot assume that everything funded under Peace I will automatically receive funding under Peace II and some comments being made about gap funding put us into that position. We are trying to be helpful to Peace I initiatives without being unhelpful to the other key interests that will come forward under Peace II.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister is aware of concerns in the Unionist community — they were echoed by the Deputy First Minister when he realised that there was a slight problem in applications and that perhaps a proactive approach to encouraging applications from the Unionist community for this type of funding is required. What measures are in place to ensure that there will be a more equitable distribution of funding this time?

Mr Mark Durkan: Equality interests are represented on the new monitoring committees, and the Equality Commission will be represented on those committees. Equality considerations have been built into the horizontal principles that will inform the programmes. That includes equality of opportunity for people applying for funds, and making good any gaps or disparities there have been in uptake or access in the past. The Executive Committee has been determined about that, and it is an area in which the European Commission has been particularly encouraging.

Newry Social Security Office

Mr John Fee: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he has plans to replace the Newry social security benefit office.
(AQO 209/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: Yes, I intend to replace Newry social security office, and I will soon be inviting expressions of interest from developers.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for the directness and the brevity of his answer. This is one of those occasions when a little more detail would have been helpful. However, I accept fully the direct reassurance the Minister has given.
Bearing in mind that the current benefit office accommodation in Newry for applicants and staff is so poor, can the Minister indicate the timescale for finding a new location, where that location might be, or how it will be determined? Can he give us any assurance that the current staff complement will not be reduced in future?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member asked for more detail — he is now asking for quite a lot of detail. With regard to time, I indicated that we will invite expressions of interest from developers. We hope that advertisements to that effect will be placed in a couple of weeks. We actually want schemes to be submitted by 24January 2001 and we hope to have those assessed and appraised by early to mid-March. We hope to be in a position to make appointments then. It is estimated that it will take about 15 months to complete the building and occupation stages. I hope that work should be completed by summer 2002.
As to location, we will await proposals from developers. The previous site in Bridge Street is still there and is still available. However, developers might suggest other sites. The site would have to be within a mile of the town centre, which is taken as being the middle of Hill Street.
As far as numbers are concerned, all social security staff will occupy the new building. DHSS and Training and Employment Agency staff would also avail of the new building. Some of the other Departments made alternative arrangements since the fire, and those alternative arrangements will stand. Those people will not come into the new offices.

Mr Speaker: Before calling any further supplementaries, may I advise that I will rule Members out of order for asking for the replacement of offices in other places. This is not the first time I have had to take such a line, because Members are prone to give in to the temptation to take a question concerning a particular constituency and a specific issue and apply it willy-nilly to others.
I gaze around for any indication that a Member wishes to speak. MrHussey wishes to risk it.

Mr Derek Hussey: I congratulate the Minister on his first answer. It is nice to hear a Minister giving a very short answer and I am sure Mr Fee appreciated it. Are there plans with regard to other social security offices throughout Northern Ireland, and is the Minister aware of the particular problems in Strabane?

Mr Speaker: On the latter part of the question, I am ruling the Member out of order. On the first part, I congratulate him on his ingenuity and the Minister on the conciseness of his earlier reply.

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Speaker, I thank you for advising the Members with that very helpful moratorium. We are aware that a number of social security offices, and indeed a number of offices of different services, need to be improved, and we are aware that commitments have been made to a variety of localities, not least the one that the Member rather sneakily mentioned. We obviously hope to be in a position to bring forward appropriate details when we are ready.

Mr Roy Beggs: In considering the redevelopment of benefit offices, will the Minister look carefully at the approach taken in pilot areas such as Lisburn and Dungannon, where the benefit offices and the Training and Employment Agency have been integrated? Unemployment has been reduced by 25% and this has been attributed to the change.

Mr Mark Durkan: That is one consideration that will be borne in mind when we look at future social security office accommodation needs. It would go along with all the other basic service needs of social security offices. In relation to the proposal for Newry, I did say that the Training and Employment Agency will also be located in the new office. The two Departments concerned — the Department for Social Development and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment — have been successfully developing the very pilot schemes that the Member referred to, and the Executive Committee wants to see further progress made.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Minister for the information he gave about the location, or possible location, of the new office in Newry. In the light of forthcoming events at the weekend, I wonder whether he might be in a position to tell Members from Newry, and other Members, the location of their social security offices.

Mr Speaker: It is unreasonable to ask the Minister for information of that kind at a time like this.

Civil Service: Administrative Assistants

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will detail the number of administrative assistants employed on a casual basis by the NorthernIreland Civil Service over the last five years, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 192/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: In relation to the previous question, I will, of course, refer those who may ask to the Minister for Social Development — or, rather, a former Minister for Social Development. He might well have a helpful list somewhere.
The numbers of administrative assistants employed on a casual basis as at 1 January in the past five years were as follows: 1996, 1,272; 1997, 1,584; 1998, 1,391; 1999, 1,388; and 2000, 1,295. Casual appointments are made by the employing Departments to meet their business needs, particularly in relation to, for example, short-term vacancies, special projects and projected staffing levels.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I wish to ask the Minister why so few permanent positions were made available. Does the Minister agree that it is a waste of resources to bring these people in for a year, train them and then let them go? The figures he quoted in relation to the past five years prove the need for permanent staff in some areas.

Mr Mark Durkan: Again I make the point that casual appointments are made by the appointing Departments to take account of particular circumstantial pressures and needs. In many cases, because of vacancies at other levels, people are "acting up", and that in turn creates temporary vacancies at the level of administrative assistant. That is why many of these appointments are temporary and casual.
While I gave the figures, as asked, for casual administrative assistants, perhaps I should also give figures for permanent appointments over part of the same period. During the period December 1996 to March 1998, 650 permanent administrative assistants and administrative officers were appointed. In the period April 1998 to March 1999 the figure was 1,640, and in the period April 1999 to April 2000 it was 1,590. While the figures for casual appointments may seem high, a considerable number of permanent appointments are being made.

Rates Revaluation (Domestic Properties)

Mr Seamus Close: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he has any plans for a rate revaluation for domestic properties in NorthernIreland.
(AQO 208/00)

Mr Mark Durkan: As part of the work on the Programme for Government, and as previously indicated in the Chamber, I intend to review the rating system in NorthernIreland, and a domestic revaluation will be considered within this review.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I look forward to the review of the rating system. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the current system, whereby money is raised from taxpayers throughout NorthernIreland, is based on a system that is not transparent, is not at all progressive and levies money through an iniquitous regional rate, which all of us abhor. Does he agree that the sooner such a system is done away with the better?

Mr Mark Durkan: I make the point that I have made before. Clearly the Assembly has some reliance on the regional rate to fund part of our public expenditure. In relation to trying to overcome any of the anomalies, difficulties and problems that many have with the district rate, the regional rate and the rating system in general, we need to take account of what alternatives are available to us and what we would put in their place.
I do not believe that we can afford to opt for blanket abolition if we want to continue to spend at the sort of level we indicated in the Budget last week. If we are to create alternatives, we need this type of wholesale review to identify precisely all the issues involved, along with the alternatives and the possible problems that might attach to those alternatives.

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Minister will be aware of the concern that has been voiced about any possible increase above the rate of inflation in rents for Housing Executive tenants. It is an issue that many Members have concerns about, including those of us on these Benches. Can he give the House a reason why he proposes to increase the regional rate by 8%? When he considers rate revaluation for domestic properties in Northern Ireland, will he not reconsider this? I know that the proposed increase has caused concern to domestic ratepayers. The Minister has a little more work to do to persuade people that an increase of that magnitude is justified.

Mr Mark Durkan: If we compare the total rates bills of householders in Northern Ireland with those across the water, we find that contributions here are not particularly high or excessive, even with the 8% increase scheduled on the domestic rate for next year. If we take a ready reckoner on this, each per cent of increase on the domestic rate would work out at £2·2 million in terms of public expenditure. Therefore, for each lower rate increase of 1% that we make, we have to alter the spending plans for next year accordingly by £2·2 million.
If Members want to suggest alternatives for funding the lower rate increases, then that is something that could be looked at in the context of the overall Budget consideration. We want to try to deal with many of the underlying concerns and anomalies in the rating system in the broader rating review. We want to make it more transparent so that householders — the key fund-givers — actually understand the value of what they are contributing to and the value of what they are getting in return.

Mr Sean Neeson: The Minister has stated that he and his Department are looking at alternatives. Is it an alternative that this Assembly should have tax-varying powers?

Mr Mark Durkan: Property-related taxation — the rates — comes within the competence of the Assembly. Tax-varying powers are a different area and are not transferred matters.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister agree that since £20 million is spent on North/South bodies, the people of Northern Ireland would probably appreciate no increase in the regional rate —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member knows perfectly well that that is well outside any conceivable, reasonable supplementary relating to this question. It is also now outside the time, and I therefore move to the next item of business.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: Final Stage

Mr Speaker: The Further Consideration Stage of this Bill having been completed, along with my own consideration, which is that the Bill, as it now stands, is competent and conforms to the European Convention on Human Rights, we move to the Final Stage. I call the Minister for Social Development.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (NIA 1/00) do now pass.
In agreeing to the provisions of this Bill, the House will make a major contribution to the ongoing process of welfare reform. I will not go over the provisions in any detail, but I will comment briefly on what has been achieved. The foundations have been laid for a new, fairer, simpler system of child support which, above all, will do what child support has always aimed to do, which is to get the money to the children who are entitled to it.
In the field of pensions, the most significant achievement is the introduction of the state second pension to help those who, through no fault of their own, cannot earn enough to build up a good pension under the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) or through an occupational or personal pension. We are doing much to increase the independence in retirement of a significant section of society, including carers and the disabled, who until now had no option but to rely on means-tested benefits in their twilight years. We have also improved the regulation of occupational pension schemes by extending the functions of the Pensions Ombudsman and making it easier to obtain information about prospective pension entitlements.
The provisions dealing with housing benefit decisions and appeals bring that benefit into line with procedures for other social security benefits and child support, and are entirely beneficial. After a lengthy debate, we have put measures on the statute book to allow for both the withdrawal of a driving licence for failure to make child support payments and for the withdrawal of benefits where a court decides that a person has breached a community sentence.
I am aware of the depth of feeling in the House about the severity of those measures. It is incumbent on me to remind the House that while those measures will be used if necessary, they are intended primarily as deterrents. The threat of a driving licence withdrawal is intended to deter non-resident parents from defaulting on child support payments. The benefits sanction is intended to encourage compliance with the terms of a community sentence. I remind the House that the provisions dealing with community sentences will not be brought into operation in Northern Ireland before they have been piloted in England and Wales. Following evaluation of the pilot schemes, they will both be brought into force throughout Great Britain.
I would like to put on record my deep appreciation to all those who contributed to the debates on these sensitive matters. Many people spoke with feeling and with considerable knowledge, allowing us to fully consider the relevant issues. DavidFord and MonicaMcWilliams showed particular interest, albeit in opposing certain clauses. There were of course those who were very positive and who latched on to the merits of the Bill and spoke accordingly. These included PeterRobinson, IanPaisley, JimShannon and others.
Several Members expressed reservations about the use of the accelerated passage procedure for a Bill of this size and complexity. I will not rake over the embers of earlier discussions about who may or may not have objected to the accelerated procedure had they been able to be here at the appropriate time. That is a side issue. The accelerated passage procedure is tailor-made to cover this area of legislation. The unique position of social security, child support and pensions is specifically recognised in the very Act that set up this Assembly and from which we draw our legislative competence.
Had we not been able to avail of accelerated passage, this Bill would, in all probability, have taken several months to complete its passage. In earlier debates I spoke at length about parity. I trust that all parties in the House recognise the major advantages that parity brings. It is clearly not right to delay the implementation of parity legislation for several months and to deny the people of Northern Ireland the same rights as their fellow citizens in Great Britain. Even we can avail of the accelerated passage procedure.
The procedure is not perfect, but in the course of the passage of the Bill we were able to fully debate all the issues that Members wanted to raise. As far as I am aware, every Member who wished to speak was able to do so. I trust that I answered every question asked of me. I ask those Members who expressed concern about the use of accelerated passage to consider carefully what I have said. In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions to what have been lively and thought-provoking debates.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: A Chathaoirligh, while I accept that this Bill has some merit and value, I would like to put it on the record that it contains clauses and principles that we cannot support. As we cannot support the Bill in its entirety, we will vote against it.

Mr David Ford: It will come as no great surprise to the Minister that my Colleagues and I remain unpersuaded by his arguments, specifically on clause 16 and clauses 53 to 57. We found the Minister’s arguments no more persuasive than our friends who heard Ministers advocate similar arguments in Westminster did. Nonetheless, we recognise that 90% — if not more — of the Bill is uncontentious and contains principles of parity which we in this part of the Chamber fully support. Although we may not accept parity in every dot and comma, it is clear that there should be parity in the benefits paid in specific cases.
Ninety per cent of the Bill went through uncontentiously, and the Minister, his party Colleagues and his silent followers in the UUP defeated us on other matters. To date, the Bill has passed through its stages properly, and we will not oppose it further.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I welcome Mr Ford’s remarks. Even if he has not seen the light entirely, at least there is a glimmer of hope. I thank him.

Mr David Ford: If you go on like that — [Laughter]
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 57; Noes 14.
Ayes
Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Oliver Gibson, Carmel Hanna, William Hay, Joe Hendron, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Sean Neeson, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Tierney, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
David Ervine, Michelle Gildernew, John Kelly, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (NIA 1/00) do now pass.
The sitting was suspended at 4.29 pm.